Feed aggregator

Si Kamala Harris remporte la course au poste suprême de la Maison Blanche, elle sera la première femme présidente des États-Unis et le premier président d'origine indienne et jamaïcaine. Voici un aperçu de la position de la vice-présidente sur les questions de politique étrangère et de son expérience internationale.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is currently unusable due to numerous issues, including outdated technology and damage from a 2019 fire. Despite Russia's advancements in nuclear technology, they lack a modern nuclear-powered carrier. The Soviet-era project Ulyanovsk, intended to be a formidable nuclear supercarrier, was never completed due to the USSR's collapse.

-Though there are claims from Russian Navy officials about developing a new carrier, the timeline and feasibility remain uncertain, especially given Russia's recent military and economic challenges.

The Soviet Supercarrier That Never Was: Ulyanovsk's Unfinished Legacy

Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine has sparked a renewed round of interest in the country’s military technologies and weapons systems, though admittedly a lot of that interest stems from morbid curiosity on account of their poor performance.

Among the questions being raised is why Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, isn’t being employed in the ongoing conflict.

Well, it turns out that the Kuznetsov is beset with a whole host of maladies, from reliance on an ultra-thick, tarry black substance called Mazut as its power source, to a 2019 onboard fire that cost 300-350 million rubles in damages.

This in turn begs an additional question: Why doesn’t Russia have a more modern nuclear-powered carrier?

Wherefore Art Thou, Russian Nuclear Aircraft Carrier?

Given Moscow’s developments in other facets of nuclear technology, from land-based nuclear refineries to nuclear submarines-such as the titanic Typhoon class – to nuclear ICBMs such as the new “Sarmat” – why haven’t they also been able to apply that industrial engineering knowhow to aircraft carriers?

Well, as it turns out, the Russkies’ lack of a nuke-powered carrier certainly wasn’t due to a lack of effort or desire.

Back in the mid-1980s, the then-Soviet government conceived a supercarrier project known as Ulyanovsk, named after Vladimir Lenin’s hometown. As noted by columnist Paul Richard Huard explained, “Had she ever sailed, the Soviet supercarrier Ulyanovsk would have been a naval behemoth more than 1,000 feet long, with an 85,000-ton displacement and enough storage to carry an air group of up to 70 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft.”  For the basis of comparison, the U.S. Navy’s USS George H.W. Bush — the most modern and advanced flat-top of the improved Nimitz-class supercarriers — is roughly 1,100 feet long, with a displacement of 102,000 tons fully laden with ammunition and supplies, and a normal carrying capacity of 56 aircraft. The Russian carrier also boasted an impressive arsenal, including P-700 missiles and onboard surface-to-air missile systems.

The Ulyanovsk’s keel was laid in 1988, during which time the Soviet economy was already in dire straits, and three years before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Even if the USSR hadn’t collapsed, this giant ship was such a large project that builders wouldn’t have finished her until the mid-1990s. Ironically enough, construction took place at the Black Sea Shipyard, aka Nikolayev South Shipyard 444, in Ukraine.

As a bit of gee-whiz historical trivia for you film buffs out there, that is the same shipyard from whence the famous Russian battleship Potemkin — scene of the famous 1905 naval mutiny and the subject of Sergei Eisenstein’s classic film — was launched.

But, of course, the USSR did indeed collapse, and with it went the funding to complete the construction of the Ulyanovsk. As Professor James R. Holmes, holder of the J.C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College, elaborates, “The Soviets weren’t dumb. They wouldn’t spend themselves into oblivion to keep up with the Joneses, and as a great land power, they had enormous claims on their resources to fund the army and air force. There was only so much to go around for ‘luxury fleet’ projects. Bottom line, if you can’t afford to keep the existing fleet at sea, where are you going to get the money to complete your first nuclear-powered supercarrier, a vessel that will demand even more manpower that you can’t afford?”

Resurrecting the Russian Nuke Carrier?

Fast-forward to the present day, and in the intervening years, Vladimir Putin has done much to modernize Russia’s armed forces in the intervening years since Boris Yeltsin replaced Mikhail S. Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War. Whilst Putin’s modernization program certainly included the Russian Navy, aircraft carriers still simply haven’t been a priority.

However, that may change soon, as Russian Navy Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently went on public record proclaiming “The navy will have an aircraft carrier. The research companies are working on it.” Admiral Chirkov did not specify the size or capabilities of this new carrier, nor did he give an estimated timeframe for its keel-laying or its completion.

Given the Russians’ recent failures to meet certain other military timeframes, especially pertaining to their “special military operation in Ukraine,” we probably shouldn’t be holding our collective breaths anytime soon.

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon).  Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).  He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security.

Image Credit: Shutterstock and/or Creative Commons.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's ambition to produce the Su-75 "Checkmate," a competitive and cost-effective fifth-generation fighter, has been hindered by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Money problems could be the plane's biggest foe. 

-The conflict has diverted resources and focus towards immediate military needs, slowing the development of advanced systems like the Su-75. The aircraft, designed to be partially stealthy and affordable compared to American models, faces challenges including a lack of foreign buyers, with the UAE withdrawing interest due to geopolitical tensions.

-If Russia overcomes these hurdles, the Su-75 could significantly impact the global fighter aircraft market, but current circumstances make this unlikely.

War in Ukraine Stalls Russia's Su-75 'Checkmate' Fighter Jet Development

Russia is a great power. Unlike other great powers, such as the United States, it favors function over form and often the Russian philosophy is to simply produce systems that are “good enough” for challenging their rivals. This is why the Russian military, despite the headaches they’ve encountered in their illegal war against Ukraine, is defeating their Ukrainian neighbors—even as Russia is forced to increasingly rely on older, less sophisticated, and cheaper-to-produce systems. 

Nevertheless, Russia continues investing in developing next-generation weapons platforms for their military. Moscow has been interested in developing fifth-generation warplanes that not only can compete with those of both the United States and China, but Russian leaders envision making technologically competitive fifth-generation warplanes that are cheaper than their American and Chinese competitors. 

Despite their commitment to building competitive fifth-generation warplanes, Russia has struggled to bring their bold concepts to fruition. The War in Ukraine has not helped them, as Russia’s defense industrial base has had to focus on mass-producing weapons and platforms that are easy to build and can be quickly deployed to the frontline. 

That has forced Russia’s design bureaus to slow down on producing newer, more advanced warbirds, as these systems require greater attention in their development phase than what the Russian defense industrial base wants to dedicate to it.

In previous posts, I have detailed the problems that the Sukhoi Design Bureau, one of Russia’s premier defense contractors, has encountered in mass producing their much-ballyhooed fifth-generation warplane, the Su-57. 

But there is another warbird that is struggling to take flight. This one belonging to another Russian defense firm, Rostec, a subsidiary of Sukhoi Design Bureau. That’s the Su-75 “Checkmate.”

Russia Too Focused on Ukraine to Build the Su-75

Here again, Russia’s vision for a future bird has outstripped its capacity to produce them. As I have written before, do not underestimate the Russians. Especially as their defense industrial base and war economy are turbocharged by the Ukraine War at a time when America’s and Europe’s defense industrial bases are being drained by that same conflict. 

The Su-75 is an interesting plane, though. And if the Russians ever did figure out how to make it as affordably as they want to, the Russians would have a clear advantage over their American rivals. Sure, the Americans are already talking about retiring their older fifth-generation warplanes and are well into developing a sixth-generation bird. 

But who among us can say that, with the exception of the F-22A Raptor (which is the plane that the Air Force is trying to retire), America’s fifth-generation birds have been anything other than unnecessary? 

Or that a costly, hard-to-produce sixth-generation bird is worth the investment?

And it’s clear that the world remains steadfastly committed to the fifth-generation warplane, hence the reason behind every major country either seeking to purchase a fifth-generation warplane or to build one of their own. As with all complex systems, the matter is one of cost and time. The Russian Su-75 could remove the biggest barrier of all—cost—if their defense industrial base has the time to work out the kinks. 

The Su-75 Specifications 

The Su-75 Checkmate is a lower-cost fifth-generation warplane because it is only partly truly stealthy. Whereas America’s F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are totally stealth, the proposed Su-75 has much of its stealthiness located in the front half of the bird. 

Described as a “light tactical fighter,” the Su-75 Checkmate will have five internal weapons bays (to enhance its stealthy appearance). It will carry both guided and unguided weapons into battle. The RVV-MD short-range missile and the RVV-SD long-range missile make up its guided munitions. Checkmate’s ground-attack capabilities will include precision-guided munitions, such as the X-31PD missile, as well as the KH-35UE.

The Su-75’s designers claim the bird can be flown in tandem with unmanned aerial vehicles, enhancing its lethality.

A single NPO Saturn AL-51F-1 engine powers this warbird. It produces around 18,000 kilogram force (KGF) thrust, with a total thrust of around 36,000 kgf. So, this bird is packing a potent engine. The Checkmate can cruise at a maximum speed of around Mach 1.8, with a range of about 1,900 miles. 

Losing Foreign Buyers

At $30 million per unit, this bird would be appealing to countries seeking access to fifth-generation warplanes but at a lower cost than what the American F-35 is going for. Too bad for Russia, its one foreign buyer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to have backed out in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and is now purchasing a block of F-35s from the United States.

Still, if the Russians were ever able to take this bird off the drawing board, especially if they can end the Ukraine War soon—and keep the costs down—the Su-75 could be a real boon for Russia. Until then, this is a bird with nowhere to fly to. Russia is seeking foreign buyers because Moscow understands that it cannot produce such planes only for its military and expect costs to remain low. 

Yet, without significant foreign interest—which is greatly lacking—the Su-75 won't ever fly. 

About the Author

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

Main image is from Shutterstock. All other images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Zumwalt-class destroyers, initially designed to provide artillery support with advanced 155-mm guns, have been a costly disappointment for the U.S. Navy. With only three of the planned 32 ships built, the Zumwalt-class has faced numerous issues, including exorbitant costs and the removal of its main artillery due to functionality problems.

-The Navy now plans to repurpose these ships as hypersonic missile carriers, despite doubts about their reliability and effectiveness.

-Critics argue that these destroyers are more liability than asset and suggest focusing on more practical solutions like launching hypersonic weapons from submarines or unmanned underwater vehicles.

Zumwalt-Class Destroyers: A Costly Blunder for the U.S. Navy?

The US Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyer is, along with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), probably the Navy’s worst investment ever.

Costing Navy around $22 billion in research and development, it had stealth features, and was designed to provide artillery support with a 155-mm Advanced Gun System (AGS).

This warship was the reason behind the Chief of Naval Operation in 2006 authorizing the termination of the ammunition supply chains for America’s semi-retired Iowa-class battleships. An addendum inserted by Congress to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 instructed the Navy to maintain America’s legendary battleships until the Navy could prove they had a viable, modern replacement for it. 

The Navy assumed the Zumwalt was the answer they’d been looking for. 

America’s Navy was wrong. The Zumwalt-class ended up being a giant boondoggle that almost everyone hates. The inability of the Zumwalts to perform their intended mission has not only made it a waste of money and resources. This failure to achieve its basic mission has meant that a critical capability gap has formed in the US Navy. 

Specifically, the destroyer was meant to provide artillery cover for friendly forces fighting ashore. But things have gotten so bad for the Zumwalt-class that the Navy removed the ship’s 155-mm cannon, effectively castrating the unlucky warship.

Instead, the Pentagon is now looking at making the Zumwalt-class a floating hypersonic missile carrier. Last year, the Navy awarded a $154.8 million contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) to implement the upgrade. Mind you, the Navy could not get the 155-mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) onboard the Zumwalt-class to work. 

The geniuses behind the Zumwalt initially planned for the Navy to order 32 units of these bizarre looking stealth warships. Due to cost overruns and overall inefficiency of the defense industrial base, the Navy ended up with only three.

And this impacts the development of the 155-mm AGS because, as it turned out, the ship’s designers failed to make the new gun system interoperable with the US Army and NATO’s standard 155-mm Howitzer artillery shells. Because there were only three units of the Zumwalt-class as opposed to the original 32 planned, the costs of the artillery pieces that were compatible with the AGS cost a staggering $800,000 per round.

Now the Navy is trying to justify their investment. With the rise in importance of hypersonic weapons, the Navy is clearly to merge the necessary with the utterly unnecessary, in order to justify their sunk cost into the Zumwalt-class destroyer. In fact, the Zumwalt has an assortment of other weaknesses that few other warships have—especially warships that bear the same cost and claim to be as advanced as the Zumwalt-class is. 

For example, in 2018, the second Zumwalt-class USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) apparently suffered a blown turbine on its shakedown cruise resulting in it being sent back to the San Diego shipyard, where even more tax dollars will be spent repairing it. These warships are flimsy, their systems are needlessly complex, and these vessels are more of a liability to the United States than they are advantages, whatever stealth capabilities the designers of these boats say they possess.

The entire weapons launch capabilities of the Zumwalt-class will need to be rebuilt to accommodate hypersonic weapons. That’s to say nothing of the fact that the Common Hypersonic Glide Bodies (C-HGB) that the Navy is developing jointly with the US Army are highly experimental. Therefore, the idea that they will be readily available in the next year or so is somewhat laughable. 

Even if the C-HGBs are ready on time and work as promised (big ifs), the probability that the easily damaged Zumwalt-class destroyers will be reliable launching platforms in combat. Consider this: the Chinese have arrayed what is probably the world’s most advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) network in the Indo-Pacific. 

While the Zumwalt’s designers will likely argue that the stealth features of the Zumwalt would negate whatever advantages China’s A2/AD systems enjoy over other conventional US surface warships, the fact is that these boats are untested. 

What’s more, they’re designer for operating dangerously close to enemy shorelines. When one is fighting a terrorist organization or a third world rogue state, there is less of a risk to the Zumwalt from shore (although even this is changing, as the Houthis are showing). 

On the face of it, the Navy should be applauded for trying to turn a failure into a success story. The only problem is that the Zumwalt is such a bad system—and it’s old now—that the Navy would be better off either adapting an existing platform, like perhaps a submarine, to launch the C-HGB. 

The Navy has wasted billions of three warships that are floating disasters. They’re as embarrassing (or they should be) for America’s national prestige as the Admiral Kuznetsov is for Russia’s.

Turn the Zumwalt-class into scrap. Build the hypersonic weapons. And make them launchable from submarines. Or, better yet, make them compatible for launch with DARPA’s newest unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), the Manta Ray. That’s the only way that the US Navy will have the firepower and access to burst those Chinese A2/AD bubbles. 

About the Author 

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. 

Die Verhaftung eines Umweltaktivisten in Dänemark hat unter den Mitgliedern des EU-Parlaments und der französischen Nationalversammlung für Aufsehen gesorgt. Insgesamt achtundsechzig Abgeordnete fordern in einem Schreiben an die dänische Ministerpräsidentin die Freilassung des Aktivisten.

Summary and Key Points: The USS Franklin (CV-13), an Essex-class aircraft carrier, was one of the most decorated ships in U.S. Navy history. Commissioned in January 1944, it participated in numerous World War II Pacific campaigns. The carrier endured severe attacks, including kamikaze strikes and bomb hits, causing significant casualties.

-Despite being heavily damaged and nearly abandoned, the ship's crew heroically saved it, earning the nickname "The Ship That Wouldn't Die."

-The Franklin's crew received numerous awards, including two Medals of Honor. After the war, the ship was decommissioned and never returned to active service, marking a notable chapter in naval history.

The Indomitable USS Franklin: The Ship That Wouldn't Die

Twenty-four Essex-class aircraft carriers were built for the U.S. Navy during World War II, and only two did not continue their service during the Cold War. One of those was the USS Franklin (CV-13). The ship received numerous awards, including four battle stars for service. Meanwhile its sailors become one of the most decorated crews in Navy history.

What makes this all the more notable is that the Essex-class carrier was only commissioned on January 31, 1944. Deployed to the Pacific, CV-13 took part in the Mariana Islands Campaign, providing air support during amphibious landings on the Bonin Islands, Guam, and the Palau Islands, among others. The carrier took part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and on October 30, 1944, was attacked by Japanese kamikazes, which struck the flight deck. 

Back to Action 

After being repaired at the Puget Sound Navy Yard in Bremerton, Washington, the USS Franklin – nicknamed "Big Ben" by her crew – returned to service and joined Task Force 58 in March 1945. The carrier was supporting air attacks on the Japanese home islands in support of the landings on Okinawa when on March 19, she came under attack from a Japanese bomber that closed on the flattop and dropped two 550-pound semi-armor-piercing bombs. The first bomb struck the flight deck, exploding on impact and tragically killing nearly all the crewmembers located at the forward part of the hangar deck.

A second bomb also struck the flight deck, igniting a series of fires that engulfed the warship and its aircraft. At the time the bombs were dropped, the carrier had 31 armed and fueled aircraft warming up on her flight deck, while the hangar deck contained an additional 22 planes – with 16 also fueled, and five armed. The bombs set off a series of explosions of ordnance, setting off general purpose bombs, "Tiny Tim" rockets, and aviation fuel. Just two crewmen in the hangar deck survived.

That wasn't the last of it. The initial attack was followed up by seemingly relentless waves of Japanese aircraft that included a reported five more bombers, 14 torpedo planes, and a dozen fighters. Big Ben was clearly a big prize for the Imperial Japanese Navy. The ship was essentially dead in the water just 50 miles off the coast of Japan. It listed as much as 13 degrees to starboard.

The "Lucky 13"

The ship lost all radio communications. Much of her crew – those that weren't blown overboard, killed, or wounded – continued valiantly to save the warship. Though Captain Leslie E. Gehres, commanding officer of the USS Franklin, was advised to issue an abandon ship order, he did not – Gehres believed the ship could be saved. Despite the relentless attacks, CV-13 proved to have luck on her side and survived, earning a reputation as "The Ship That Wouldn't Die."

However, the ship’s survival came at a tragically high price, with 796 killed and 265 wounded. Combined with those killed on October 30, 1944, during the kamikaze attack, the USS Franklin had 924 of its crew killed – the highest count of any U.S. ship in the Second World War except for the USS Arizona (BB-39), which was sunk at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Lieutenant Commander Joseph T. O'Callahan, the ship's Catholic chaplain, and Lieutenant Donald A. Gary, were each awarded the Medal of Honor for their heroic efforts in attending to the wounded and saving numerous lives, while an additional 19 Navy Crosses, 22 Silver Stars, 116 Bronze Stars, and 235 Letters of Commendation were issued to the crew. In total, the U.S. Navy awarded 808 posthumous Purple Hearts, along with 347 Purple Hearts to the survivors.

As noted, the crew of the USS Franklin was the most decorated in U.S. Navy history, and they truly earned their awards.

The carrier was undergoing repairs when the war ended, and she was sent to the Atlantic Reserve Fleet. Though redesignated an attack aircraft carrier (CVA-13), an antisubmarine warfare support carrier (CVS-13), and finally an aircraft transport (AVT-8), she never returned to active service. 

Along with the USS Bunker Hill (CVN-17), also damaged in a kamikaze attack, the USS Franklin was just one of two U.S. Navy Essex-class carriers never to return to action. It could be said the warship earned her retirement, and proved the Essex class was essentially unsinkable. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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.

The main image is of the USS Franklin. All others are images of Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers. All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The French Navy's Charles de Gaulle (CDG) is the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier outside the U.S. Navy's fleet. While smaller than the U.S. Nimitz and Ford classes, the CDG remains a formidable warship, equipped with a steam catapult system and an air wing comprising Dassault Rafael M strike fighters, E-2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft, and helicopters.

-Despite initial design and funding challenges, the carrier has undergone significant refits and upgrades, enhancing its capabilities.

-The CDG has actively participated in various operations, including Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, solidifying its role as the French Navy's flagship.

Meet Charles de Gaulle: The French Navy's Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

The Second World War saw the advent of aircraft carriers as the premier warship of the seas. Since then, the U.S. Navy has established itself as the undeniable carrier powerhouse, with 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers in its fleets.

Other navies, however, have not neglected this important component of naval warfare. In particular, the French Navy is the only other navy in the world to field a nuclear-powered carrier, the Charles de Gaulle (CDG). 

Though not as big as the Nimitz or Ford classes of the U.S. Navy, the CDG is still a formidable warship. She boasts a steam catapult system only slightly smaller than those found on U.S. carriers which is still capable of launching F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and C-2 Greyhounds. 

Her air wing consists of Dassault Rafael M strike fighters, E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, and numerous helicopters. She has carried these aircraft on numerous deployments and in combat operations in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle - Specs & capabilities:

The Charles de Gaulle has its roots in the 1980s. France had completed two carriers in the 1960s, the Clemenceau and Foch, and was looking ahead at their replacements. The resultant design was a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with an angled deck and steam catapults. This was still a relatively novel configuration, which allowed for simultaneous launching and recovery of larger and heavier aircraft and increased the safety of carrier air operations.

Following several years of design, during which politicians squabbled over her name - she was to be called the Richelieu - construction began in the Brest shipyard in 1987. An early 1990’s recession only worsened funding prospects, and completion was delayed.

Work was stopped no fewer than four times during this period due to funding issues. Construction was finally completed in the late 1990s and the ship was put to sea for sea trials by the end of the decade. Tests found that her flight deck was too short to accommodate the proposed air wing, specifically the E-2C Hawkeye. Upon revelation to the public, this news caused an outcry as it was a near exact repeat of the process undergone on the previous two carriers.

Refits and upgrades:

Since her completion, the carrier has undergone two major periods of refits and upgrades, in 2007 and 2017. Each time involved a refueling of the nuclear reactor as well as upgrading the support and communications systems for the embarked air wing. The 2007 overhaul replaced her propellers - she had been using spares from the older Clemenceau since her launch due to one of the brand-new propellers breaking. 

Operational history for Charles de Gaulle:

Following her commissioning, the Charles de Gaulle has participated in numerous operations and deployments. In 2001 and 2002, she supported U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean. She was involved in the no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 and was an integral part of the campaign to defeat the Islamic State in 2015. Through it all, the CDG has proven to be a capable aircraft carrier and deserves to be the flagship of the French fleet.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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: Lockheed Martin has unveiled new details about its hypersonic Mako missile, designed to be launched from the internal weapons bay of both the F-35 and F-22 Raptor.

-Developed over seven years, the Mako missile is a multi-mission weapon system for maritime strike, counter-air defense, and surface-attack operations.

-It can achieve speeds over Mach 5 with high maneuverability, making it difficult to intercept. Initially developed for the U.S. Air Force, the missile might now be adopted by the U.S. Navy. The Mako missile's ability to be launched from stealth fighters significantly enhances its tactical deployment, complicating enemy defenses.

New Hypersonic Mako Missile to Boost F-35 and F-22 Combat Capabilities

Lockheed Martin has released new details about the air-launched hypersonic Mako missile, which promises to be the first hypersonic weapon in the world that can be launched from the internal weapons bay of not just the F-35, but the F-22 Raptor as well.

This new missile has been under development for seven years and has been touted by Lockheed officials as a “multi-mission” weapon system capable of maritime strike, counter-air defense, and a variety of other surface-attack operations. It was originally developed for the U.S. Air Force, but now may find a home with the U.S. Navy instead.

Hypersonic missiles are weapons that are capable of achieving sustained speeds in excess of Mach 5 while maneuvering. But while speed may draw most of the headlines, it’s the combination of velocity and unpredictable course changes that make these weapons so difficult to intercept.

“Mako does not travel in a pure arcing ballistic flight path. It is a true hypersonic weapon that operates and maneuvers in a high-altitude hypersonic regime,” Paul Sudlow from Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control previously told Sandboxx News. “Its high speed and maneuverability enable it to penetrate advanced air-defense systems, engaging targets at or below hypersonic speeds, depending on mission requirements,” he added.

ADDING THE MAKO MISSILE TO AMERICA’S STEALTH FIGHTERS

The Mako missile was developed under the auspices of the Air Force’s Stand-In Attack Weapon program. A total of some $35 million was awarded to Lockheed Martin in three separate developmental contracts (associated with developmental phases 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). The aim was to field a weapon that could effectively engage China’s anti-access/area denial assets in the Pacific – so the weapon has to be quick, powerful, and survivable.

Hypersonic missiles are traditionally too large to fit inside the internal weapons bays of stealth fighters. This is because they usually require a large rocket motor and sufficient fuel stores to carry them to high speeds and altitudes. They then separate from the booster and continue on unpowered or under an alternate form of propulsion (as is the case with the Air Force’s scramjet-powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile).

The Mako missile’s ability to be launched from within America’s stealth fighters dramatically increases the potential vectors the weapon can attack from, substantially complicating matters for air defenses tasked with identifying and intercepting inbound threats. Intercepting a maneuvering Mach 5+ weapon launched from a fighter or bomber you can see on radar might be an extremely difficult proposition today for even the most advanced air defense systems, but intercepting one from seemingly anywhere would be even harder.

As Sudlow told Sandboxx News today, this high-speed weapon is also designed to allow for stealth aircraft, like America’s 5th-generation fighters, to fly out ahead, locate a target, and then relay that target data back to Mako-armed 4th-generation fighters carrying Lockheed Martin’s Sniper Networked Targeting Pod for engagement. This will allow older 4th-generation platforms to play a vital role in combat operations, even against targets in highly contested airspace, and further increase the destructive capabilities of 5th-generation jets.

To this end, Sudlow also confirmed that the Mako missile has already been fit-checked to be carried externally by the F/A-18 Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16C Fighting Falcon, and even the P-8A Poseidon. In effect, Lockheed Martin designed this weapon to be carried by nearly any aircraft in the U.S. arsenal carrying fairly standard 30-inch lugs.

That means the Mako missile could be another new long-range weapon in the Navy’s arsenal, alongside its recently revealed AIM-174B air-to-air missile. Both Mako and the AIM-174B are believed to offer ranges well into the hundreds of miles, meaning these two weapons could provide a significant long-range one-two punch against air- and sea-based targets. Lockheed Martin even says the Mako missile could be fired from the vertical launch tubes on the Navy’s warships if equipped with a booster, similar to what’s been done with the AGM-158C LRASM.

Nevertheless, in the long run, this weapon could find its way back to the Air Force – assuming the Navy opts to put Mako into production. This could see it carried by 4th-generation fighters supporting forward F-22 or F-35 operations, or even see it carried internally by the F-22 Raptor itself – which is still the stealthiest fighter ever to reach service.

The weapon can also be carried internally by the Air Force’s F-35As and Navy and Marine Corps F-35Cs. The only American stealth aircraft that can’t fit this new missile is the vertical landing F-35B, as its internal storage capacity is limited by the presence of the aircraft’s lifting fan.

NAMED AFTER THE FASTEST SHARK IN THE SEA

Mako was originally developed as a part of the U.S. Air Force’s Stand-In Attack Weapon (SiAW) program. That effort aimed to field an air-launched weapon meant specifically to counter elements of anti-access area denial defenses like air defense radar platforms, surface-to-air missile systems, and anti-ship missile launchers. That contract ultimately went to Northrop Grumman for a new missile system derived from its radar-hunting AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER).

But Lockheed Martin recognized that its entry to the competition could have much further reaching implications than the suppression of enemy air defenses alone. As such, the company is pitching this new missile design to the Navy as a multi-purpose air-to-surface weapon.

“For the U.S. Navy, this is a multi-mission, highly capable system, highly survivable, affordable, so you’re going to hold many targets at risk with one weapons system that’s ready now,” Rick Loy, Senior Program Manager at the company’s Missile and Fire Control division told Naval News.

Its name, Mako, is derived from the world’s fastest shark, the Shortfin Mako, which is capable of swimming as fast as 45 miles per hour (74 kilometers per hour). It’s a fitting name for a weapon that’s capable of screaming across the sky at better than 3,836 miles per hour.

At 13 feet, the missile is, appropriately enough, about as long as a Mako shark might grow. At 1,300 pounds and about 13 inches in diameter, this broadly capable missile is only about an inch longer than the AIM-120 AMRAAM that America’s stealth fighters were designed to carry; though Mako comes with significantly more heft, at nearly twice the AMRAAM’s diameter and more than three times the weight.

DESIGNED IN A ‘DIGITAL ENGINEERING ECOSYSTEM’

This new Mach 5+ missile was among Lockheed Martin’s first to be designed from the ground up entirely within a digital environment, which is in keeping with broader Pentagon efforts to use digital design and testing to reduce the real-world costs associated with testing and design revisions. By designing and then testing the weapon in the digital world first, Lockheed Martin can produce a much more mature design at the onset of operational testing.

Likewise, despite the high level of capability promised by this new weapon, Lockheed went out of its way not to invent any unnecessary components. Instead, when possible, it pulled from several already-fielded systems with existing and proven supply chains to reduce the number of variables that could potentially affect a production order. As Lockheed Martin’s press materials point out, the firm also brought manufacturing engineers in at the earliest stages of development to help streamline the sometimes messy transition from advanced prototyping to serialized production.

Lockheed Martin has not been specific about the guidance system carried inside the Mako, but that could be by design. The weapon’s original intended mission set for the Stand-in Attack Role suggested the use of a multi-mode seeker that would likely include anti-radiation (radar-hunting) capabilities alongside GPS/inertial guidance and potentially a millimeter-wave radar seeker to boot, allowing the weapon to close with just about any target on the surface of the earth whether moving or stationary. Yet, as Lockheed Martin has pointed out in promotional materials, the Mako was specifically designed with modularity in mind, allowing for the “rapid integration of mission-specific elements like warheads and seekers.”

Further, Lockheed specified that this modular design fully embraces the concept of open system architecture, meaning the Pentagon would not be beholden to the firm for future upgrades or updates. This is in keeping with force-wide Pentagon initiatives to field a new generation of weapon systems and platforms that are easier (and cheaper) to upgrade over decade-spanning service lives that are common for many of today’s military technologies.

MAKING HYPERSONICS AFFORDABLE?

One of the biggest challenges facing the laundry list of hypersonic weapons in active development for the U.S. military is cost. In 2021, the Defense Department projected that some of America’s hypersonic missiles may cost as much as $106 million per weapon – more than the purchase price of a brand-new F-35 – leading many to argue that these missiles simply aren’t economically viable. As a result, significant efforts to reduce the overall cost of these weapon systems have been underway for some time, with more recent assessments out of the Congressional Budget Office now projecting the per-unit cost of another Lockheed Martin-sourced hypersonic missile, the AGM-183 ARRW, at roughly $15-$18 million a piece.

And Mako continues this pursuit of cost savings by leaning into new additive manufacturing – or 3D printing – technologies. The Mako missile’s guidance section and fins are all produced through this additive manufacturing process, which Lockheed claims is ten times faster than traditional production methods while coming in at just 1/10 the cost.

Lockheed Martin has not disclosed the price point for this weapon, but it would certainly be predicated on projected order size, which would be impossible to assume at this point, with no contract yet in place for any branch to purchase this new weapon.

About the Author: Alex Hollings 

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

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy aims to enhance the F-35 Lightning II's survivability with BriteCloud decoys to counter radar-guided missiles. The F-35, a stealthy 5th-generation multirole jet, is already equipped with advanced self-protection systems.

-The BriteCloud decoy will further protect the aircraft, making it more effective in potential conflicts against near-peer adversaries like China or Russia. The F-35 comes in three variants: the conventional F-35A, the STOVL F-35B, and the carrier-based F-35C, each designed for different takeoff and landing methods.

-The F-35 is renowned for its versatility in various missions and its ability to coordinate battlefield assets.

U.S. Navy Enhances F-35 Lightning II with Advanced BriteCloud Decoys

The U.S. Navy is looking to make the F-35 Lightning II, its most capable jet, even more effective with the addition of advanced decoys.

With the prospect of a conflict against China in the Indo-Pacific always at the back of the mind, the Navy wants to make its carrier-based F-35s more survivable in a near-peer operational environment.

To that effect, the Navy wants to buy active expendable BriteCloud decoys to increase the defensive countermeasures of its F-35C.

Manufactured and sold by Leonardo, the BriteCloud is an off-board decoy deployed by an aircraft to jam the digital radio frequency of incoming radar-guided anti-aircraft missiles and divert them. Using a flight-stabilized body and its active jammer, the BriteCloud creates a credible decoy aircraft, thus confusing the incoming munition.

Although the F-35 Lightning II is a stealth jet, enemy munitions could still lock into it and shoot it down. Its stealth capabilities just make it harder to do so, giving more time to the pilot to complete a mission.

The advanced decoys will make the F-35 more survivable in a potential future conflict with a near-peer adversary like China or Russia.  

The aircraft already operates the ASQ-239 onboard self-protection system, and the BriteCloud will work in conjunction with that to further increase the jet’s defensive capabilities.

THE MOST ADVANCED MULTIROLE JET TODAY

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today.

A 5th-generation multirole aircraft, the F-35 can perform a variety of missions. Indeed, the three versions of the F-35 can conduct Air Superiority, Close Air Support, Strategic Attack, Electronic Warfare, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (DEAD) missions. 

The aircraft can also organize the battlespace around it. Through its advanced, interlinked sensors and radars, the F-35 Lightning II can communicate with other assets on the battlefield and guide them to targets, much like a quarterback would guide his teammates to victory.

The F-35 Lightning II comes in three versions: A, B, and C. In terms of capabilities, they are the same aircraft; where they differ is on how they take off and land.

The F-35A is the conventional aircraft that takes off and lands from runways. This is the most popular version of the stealth jet with the U.S. Air Force alone having ordered 1,763 aircraft.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) iteration of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter. Its STOVL capability allows it to operate from almost anywhere, making it a great expeditionary aircraft. This is the second most popular version; its biggest customers are the U.S. Marine Corps, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Finally, the F-35C is the carrier version of the aircraft and is specifically designed to take off and land on aircraft carriers. It has a more robust superstructure and landing gear that can withstand the immense pressures of carrier operations. With only 340 F-35Cs sold, this is the least popular iteration – only the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have purchased it.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary and Key Points on the NGAD Debate: The U.S. Congress has appropriated $4.2 billion since 2015 for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program, aiming to replace the prematurely discontinued F-22 Raptor.

-The NGAD seeks to develop a Sixth-Generation fighter and a technological ecosystem to maintain air superiority.

-It focuses on propulsion, uncrewed systems, materials, and sensors.

-Despite significant funding, some argue that true future air dominance lies in space capabilities.

Future of Air Dominance: Why NGAD Might Be a Flawed Investment

The article suggests prioritizing space-based defense systems to counter hypersonic threats rather than investing in another generation of expensive aircraft.

Since 2015, the United States Congress has appropriated $4.2 billion (and counting) for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program. The goal is to replace the F-22 Raptor Fifth-Generation air superiority fighter that was prematurely discontinued during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis and subsequent federal budget battle. In the eyes of US defense planners, a gaping hole in America’s strategic defenses (as well as the pocketbooks of defense contractors) has existed since the F-22 program was unceremoniously discontinued in 2009. 

Therefore, a new, Sixth-Generation warplane program is required to fill that gap.

For the US Air Force, the NGAD Program is not just about a new air superiority fighter jet. The USAF is attempting to create an entire technological innovation ecosystem that will support the continued struggle for air dominance over any and all rivals. According to the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement (IDGA), the program could lead to a singular new warplane model that outmatches anything currently in the air fleets of other nations. Or the NGAD Program “could manifest a combination of systems, such as manned, unmanned, optionally manned, cyber and electronic components." 

These configurations may deviate significantly from the traditional notion of a “fighter.”

The NGAD Program is addressing four major points of concern that Air Force planners believe will be decisive in creating the next platform for air dominance. Propulsion, uncrewed systems, materials, and sensors. Many of these aspects of the NGAD Program were areas of concern in the previous Fifth-Generation warplane programs of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs. The NGAD Program leaders are especially interested in fusing lightweight, revolutionary composite materials with uncrewed platforms that would operate in tandem with manned Sixth-Generation warplanes. 

As of June 2022, the NGAD Program requested $1.6 billion in the FY2023 budget. For FY2024, the requested NGAD budget was $2.3 billion. Between 2024 and 2027, it is projected by IDGA that the NGAD Program will receive around $11.7 billion. The systems are expected to be put into operation as early as the 2030s.

But now, a whole series of articles have come out against the idea. Even the Air Force might question the wisdom of NGAD. 

NGAD: A Bad Idea? 

Yet, the Pentagon is missing the point. 

Because the future of air dominance is not in the wild blue yonder, nor should stealth be the penultimate goal for the next generation warplane.

It is much higher than that. With the advent of the United States Space Force as the sixth branch of the US military, it is high time that war planners start innovating. You want air dominance and superiority? You need space dominance. And only a Space Force led by officers who believe in the policy of space dominance can provide absolute control over the skies above the Earth.

For all the money that is being spent on NGAD, little is being thought about the Space Force beyond limited satellite defense. The advent and application of hypersonic weapons platforms not only makes stealth an ancillary concern (or it should at least), but it also means that future wars will be fought at a distance. Given how America’s rivals—notably Russia—has outpaced America’s hypersonic weapons program, we are all made more vulnerable today. 

No Sixth-Generation warplane will be able to detect or protect against hypersonic attacks, the way space systems can.

Space Systems Can Defend Us from Hypersonic Attack

It is only in the strategic high ground of space where an advanced suite of early detection sensors can be permanently deployed that will be able to track hypersonic launches. Further, it is in the dark depths of space from where effective countermeasures against hypersonic attacks can likely be mounted. In an age of constrained budgets and a general skepticism toward greater military spending from both the Left and the Right, the Department of Defense must fundamentally rethink the way it crafts national defense strategies—and builds the systems needed to implement those strategies. 

The Air Force, with its massive budget, is no longer dealing in the final strategic domain. The air is now truly subordinate to space. And Space Force’s leadership must recognize that and must fight for a far greater share of the budgetary pie. 

Forget Sixth-Generation warplanes. Rather than looking at things from the ground-up, Pentagon planners must begin viewing the strategic situation from space-down. These planners must focus instead on building the weapons needed for comprehensive space-to-air-to-ground dominance. 

Defense Policy Innovation is Needed Now

So, rather than blowing our defense budget on building what, let’s face it, will be a somewhat redundant—and mind-bogglingly expensive—weapons platform for the Air Force, why not focus on moving the strategic ball forward? Why not place the onus for next generation air dominance in the hands of an organization that operates on a physically higher strategic domain, such as the United States Space Force? 

Our enemies have, after all, begun to catch up to the Americans. In key technological domains, such as hypersonics, they are even outpacing us. We don’t need more of the same. America deserves innovation. Otherwise, our rivals will not only catch up to us. They will leapfrog us—and likely defeat us when the inevitable next great power war erupts.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Gerald R. Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier globally, marking the start of a new class of supercarriers for the U.S. Navy. Its first deployment lasted 239 days, involving significant operations in areas like Israel and the Red Sea, conducting over 10,000 aircraft sorties.

-The carrier boasts advanced technologies like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE), enhancing aircraft turnaround by 30%.

-Despite its $13 billion cost, the Ford-class requires a 20% smaller crew than its predecessors, aiding in the current military recruitment crisis.

USS Gerald R. Ford: A New Era in Aircraft Carrier Technology

The USS Gerald R. Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier in the world. The U.S. Navy’s latest carrier to enter service, the USS Gerald R. Ford is also the first ship of a whole new class of supercarriers. 

In January, the aircraft carrier and its battlegroup completed their first full-length operational deployment, which included presence in operationally “hot” areas around Israel and the Red Sea. 

First Deployment Down

In total, the carrier spent 239 days at sea (with three extensions to its deployment because of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and the Houthis strikes against shipping in the Red Sea), conducted 43 replenishments at sea, conducted 10,396 aircraft sorties, and sailed almost 85,000 miles. 

“Throughout our time in the Mediterranean, the ship and crew both performed remarkably. Our sailors breathed life into the ship’s advanced technologies to demonstrate the extraordinary capabilities Ford-class carriers will provide to future generations,” Capt. Rick Burgess, the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier, said as the carrier strike group was finishing its deployment. 

The flattop carried F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, E-2D Hawkeye airborne warning aircraft, and C-2A Greyhound transport aircraft.

“At the height of our readiness and proficiency, we were called to the Eastern Med, and proved to be the right ship at the right time to answer our nation’s calling. The Gerald R. Ford is everything our nation hoped it would be, and more,” the carrier’s skipper added. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford can pack more than 75 fighter jets, transport aircraft, and helicopters. In terms of performance, the nuclear-powered ship can reach speeds of over 30 nautical knots (about 35 miles per hour) and can operate for 25 years nonstop before its nuclear reactor requires maintenance.  

However, all this performance and new technology doesn’t come cheap. The USS Gerald R. Ford cost the American taxpayer $13 billion. Although the cost per ship is expected to fall with the subsequent vessels of the class, the cost will still be hefty. 

New Ship, New Technology 

The Ford-class aircraft carriers come with 23 new technologies. Undoubtedly, the star is the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EALS), which can launch aircraft at a faster pace. Some other technological additions the Ford-class brings are the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE). 

Combined together, these three technologies aim for a faster turnaround of aircraft in the range of a 30 percent increase. In a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, launching and recovering aircraft at rapid rates could be key, considering the potent Anti-Access/Aerial Denial (A2/AD) systems the Chinese military operates.

“The new systems incorporated onto Ford-class ships are designed to deliver greater lethality, survivability and joint interoperability with a 20% smaller crew than a Nimitz-class carrier, paving the way forward for naval aviation,” the Navy has stated about the class’ new technology.

The fact that the Ford-class requires a 20 percent smaller crew than its predecessors is important at a period where the Navy—and indeed the whole military—are suffering from a recruitment crisis. 

About the Author  

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 the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Aircraft carriers, among the most complex naval vessels, are essential for power projection but have had several failures throughout history. 

-Japan's Hyuga and Ise, converted from battleships to carriers, were ineffective due to their mixed roles and lack of adequate air support.

-The Shinano, converted from a Yamato-class battleship, was designed to support other carriers but sank before proving its utility. Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov, plagued by mechanical issues and inadequate upgrades, remains unreliable.

-Thailand's Chakri Naruebet, once powerful, now serves minimal functions due to budget cuts and lack of operational aircraft.

The 5 Worst Aircraft Carriers Ever 

Aircraft carriers are, with the possible exception of submarines, the most complicated naval vessels afloat. Not only do carriers have the traditional concerns of warships to deal with, they must also safely manage a fleet of aircraft which are often complicated in their own right. Despite these complications, carriers are among the most useful and lethal of warships. Even now, 100 years after the first purpose-built carrier HMS Hermes was laid down, major naval powers are still building these ships.

Not everyone does aircraft carriers correctly, and there have been several clunkers with the CV designation. Most of these ships are from the early years of naval aviation, before roles and missions were clearly assigned and the technology to build them was in its adolescent years. Others were poorly designed by latecomers to the aircraft carrier game, and some were perfectly useful ships made bad by insufficient training, maintenance or aircraft.

Hyuga and Ise:

During the First World War, Japan launched two new battleships of the Ise-class. Ise and her sister ship Hyuga were 640 feet long and displaced 29,990 tons. The two ships were each armed with twelve 14-inch guns mounted in six turrets of two guns each, twenty 5.5-inch guns and four 3-inch guns. The battleships each had twelve inches of steel armor at the main belt, tapering to three inches at the ends, deck armor of up to 2.5 inches, and eight inches of armor protecting the main guns.

The Battle of Midway proved a disaster for Imperial Japan, with the loss of four top of the line aircraft carriers to determined American aerial attacks. The decision was made to convert the two battleships into battleship carriers. Both Japan and the United States had converted large warships into aircraft carriers, but this had typically occurred during the construction process, far before the ships were complete.

Japanese officials took the two aging battleships and rushed to add as much aviation capabilities as possible. The conversion deleted the two stern main gun turrets, leaving the ships with just four turrets of two guns each, and in their place was installed a short flight deck. Each ship was designed to carry up to twenty-four airplanes. The ships’ anti-aircraft armament was heavily reinforced, particularly with anti-aircraft rockets. The conversions were completed by fall 1943.

The resulting “battle carriers” were half carrier and half battleship, and all disappointment. By 1943 it was clear that battleships and aircraft carriers had very different roles. Assigned to a carrier force, both Hyuga and Ise could contribute a marginal number of planes. Assigned to a battleship force, they had not enough guns to make a serious contribution. The two ships’ minimal air wings never reached full potential: by the time the conversions were complete, Japanese naval aviation was in a death spiral, lacking enough trained pilots, airplanes and fuel to fight effectively. Both ships were sunk towards the end of the water, raised afterward for scrap in rebuilding Japan—arguably their most important and successful use.

Shinano:

Many early conversions of battleships and battlecruisers to aircraft carriers were successful, such as the American Lexington-class. The conversion of Shinano from one of the largest battleships ever to something like, but not exactly an aircraft carrier, was not.

Shinano began her existence as the third ship in the famous Yamato-class battleships. Shinano was laid down at Yokosuka Naval Yard in May 1940, but construction slowed down in 1941 and into 1942. After the Battle of Midway, the Imperial Japanese Navy changed course and began modifying Shinano to act as an aircraft carrier. Navy officials argued about her ultimate design: one faction demanded Shinano be outfitted as a real aircraft carrier. Had she been so, she would have been the largest carrier in the world, with an overall length of 872 feet—fifty feet longer than the U.S. Navy’s Essex-class fleet carriers.

Another faction wanted Shinano built out as a support ship for other carriers, carrying spare parts, fuel, ammunition and spare airplanes for Japan’s carrier fleet. Shinano would not participate in combat and indeed would have no facilities for storing aircraft of her own. Ultimately, a compromise was hammered out in which the ship would act as a support ship for the rest of the carrier fleet but also carry forty-seven fighters for her own protection.

Shinano was doomed by design and wartime realities. As an aircraft carrier capable of self-defense only she was all but worthless, and the lack of crews and aircraft would have hamstrung her use. As a ship designed to support aircraft carriers she was a white elephant, for there were few carriers left to support. Had she ventured beyond Japan she would have been little more than a target for American carrier-based aviation.

Shinano never had a chance to demonstrate her utter lack of use in combat. Five hours after leaving Yokosuka Naval Base for sea trials, she was torpedoed by the submarine USS Archerfish. She rolled over and sank at 1017 hours, November 29, 1944.

Admiral Kuznetsov:

The first and only true aircraft carrier completed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Kuznetsov was a follow-on to the Kiev-class carriers. Construction on the ship began in 1981 at the Nikolayev Shipyard, now in modern-day Ukraine. Kuznetsov was commissioned in 1990, in the dying days of the Soviet Union, and was inherited by Russia. The carrier was neglected in the early 90s due to a lack of funds and underwent a long refit from 1996 to 1998. Between 1991 and 2015, she completed only six patrols at sea.

Kuznetsov is old and needs to be retired, but as Russia’s only carrier that likely won’t happen any time soon. Until recently the ship’s propulsion system was unreliable, and in 2009 an electrical system problem led to a fire that killed one sailor. The ship’s hangar was too small, and it badly needed new arresting gear and electronics upgrades.

Russia’s only carrier went into drydock in Spring 2018 for an extended refit. The three year refit was planned to fix most of these issues, but funding for the project was cut in half and many upgrades were put on indefinite hold. In October 2018, Russia’s PD50 drydock sank while Kuznetsov was floating out, damaging the carrier in the process. Russia still insists the refit will be completed on schedule--someday.

Chakri Naruebet:

Although now an increasingly crowded field, for decades the only aircraft carrier native to East Asia (excluding the 7th Fleet) belonged to Thailand. HTMS Chakri Naruebet is a light carrier in the traditional sense, a flexible platform for missions spanning from sea control to disaster relief. Once a fairly powerful naval weapon, budget cuts and a lack of spare parts have reduced it to a shadow of its former self.

Chakri Naruebet was named after the Thai royal dynasty. Built by Spain’s Bazan Shipyards, the design was based on the Spanish Navy’s carrier Principe de Asturias. The Thai carrier was commissioned in 1997, measuring 597 feet long and displacing 11,400 tons. She was originally equipped with nine Harrier vertical takeoff and landing fighters, but the planes have run out of spare parts and no longer fly. Chakri Naruebet’s remaining air “wing” consists of four SH-60 Seahawk helicopters.

Chakri Naruebet was literally built with quarters fit for a king—the Thai king actually—leading to it being nicknamed “The World’s Largest Royal Yacht.” Budget cuts mean the Thai Navy rarely takes her out to sea.

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Alaska-class battlecruisers were developed by the U.S. Navy in response to Germany’s “pocket battleships” and Japan’s rumored “super cruisers.”

-Initiated in the 1930s and supported by President Roosevelt, these ships aimed to combine speed and firepower. However, their development was slow, and by the time they entered service in 1944, aircraft carriers and submarines had become more critical in naval warfare.

-Only two ships, Alaska and Guam, were completed, primarily serving in escort and shore bombardment roles. Despite their speed and advanced 12-inch guns, the Alaska-class ships were ultimately rendered obsolete by changing naval combat tactics during World War II.

Why the U.S. Navy's Alaska-Class Battlecruisers Were Doomed to Fail

Before World War Two, Germany had its hybrid “pocket battleships,” which were fast and powerful.

The United States wanted something that could challenge this class of ships. Not as big as a battleship but faster with guns that could wreck smaller vessels.

That led the U.S. Navy to think up the idea of the Alaska-class battlecruiser.

But unfortunately, for this class of ships, they were obsolete by the time they came into service.

Keeping up with the Germans and Japanese

The Alaska-class started out in the 1930s. Then it was Japan that entered the fray of competing ships. It was thought at the time that the Japanese were developing their own “super cruiser,” and the U.S. Navy wanted to keep up with modern vessels of war tit for tat.

FDR Was Fine With the Plan

President Roosevelt, always a navy supporter, was game for the new American battlecruiser. These ships were going to set the standard for speed and power. But the problem was that they were not going to be able to stand up and dominate a regular battleship.

Get New Ships in the Water

They were also going to be expensive – each costing $74 million in 1941 dollars, but the navy needed to fight a two-front war, and finally, Congress agreed to pass a law that would enable the number of ships to grow by 70-percent. There was going to be an astonishing 257-new ships. Six Alaska-class battlecruisers were approved.

Pearl Harbor Primed the Pump for New Ships

The Pearl Harbor attack got the ball rolling at American shipyards. But this new fever was for building aircraft carriers instead of big, capital battleships and cruisers. What was the navy going to do with a battlecruiser when carriers succeeded in bombing Japanese shipping with airplanes and American submarines feasting on Tokyo’s best naval vessels and merchant ships?

Battlecruiser Has Its Charms

The battle cruiser was still something the brass was interested in. As the World War Two National Museum wrote regarding the Alaska-class, the battlecruiser may have had a role. The speed and guns were appealing. 

“The modern 12” guns carried by the Alaska’s were also an improvement over the 14-inch guns carried by the older battleships in the U.S. fleet. Moving at a top speed of 33 knots, these ships were designed to be cruiser-killers, and would be able to get in and get out of trouble as quickly as possible and throw a hell of a punch,” the museum wrote in a profile.

The War Was Almost Over Before They Got to the Fight

The navy completed the first two ships of the class in late 1944 – the Alaska and the Guam. The Hawaii never made it to service. It wasn't until 1945 before the Alaska and the Guam recieved a mission. This was for escort and shore bombardment duty. They never filled the role they were envisioned for.

One thing the Alaska-class did well was to assist other ships during Japanese kamikaze attacks. They had great air defense and could escort wounded ships to safety.

Why the Alaska-Class Failed 

The navy should have learned from this experience with the Alaska-class. It takes substantial time to build a warship and naval combat changed rapidly over the course of World War II and even the years leading up to the conflict. Carrier-borne aviation and submarines quickly dominated naval concerns, and the battlecruiser was a solution in search of a problem. Too bad, because the Alaska-class vessels were good-looking and fast, that in another war, perhaps one fought in the 1930s, could have dominated the seas.

About the Author

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, 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: Creative Commons. 

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign pledge to impose steep tariffs on Chinese goods could benefit the European economy by providing diplomatic cover for EU policymakers to introduce similar trade defences, according to Nazak Nikakhtar, a former top US trade official.

Emilio Nsue and the Equatoguinean Football Federation appeal Fifa's ruling that the player has never been eligible to represent the African nation.

Le gouvernement hongrois, confronté à une situation financière difficile, s’est tourné vers des banques chinoises pour emprunter un milliard d’euros au printemps, a indiqué le 25 juillet l’Agence nationale de la dette (AKK).

Guntila Muleya had only been the head of the Independent Broadcasting Authority for three months.

Die Ausschüsse für Verbraucherschutz und Justiz haben eine gemeinsame Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet. Sie soll die Kommission bei der Umsetzung des Gesetzes über künstliche Intelligenz (KI) überwachen, berichten zwei mit der Angelegenheit vertraute Personen gegenüber Euractiv.

Die EU erwägt derzeit, die Vergabe von Subventionen für die Landwirtschaft and die Erreichung von politischen Meilensteinen zu knüpfen. Für den scheidenden Agrarkommissar Janusz Wojciechowski wäre dies allerdings "inakzeptabel".

Le rapport très attendu sur la compétitivité de l’Union européenne, rédigé par l’ancien président de la Banque centrale européenne Mario Draghi, ne sera publié qu’à la fin de l’été. La Commission européenne a confirmé l’information mercredi (24 juillet).