Introducing the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform, F-47

President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have announced the approval of the Air Force’s newest toy, the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform, aka the F-47 fighter jet.

In recent times we’ve seen the very impressive F-22 built for air superiority and the lackluster F-35 designed as a multi-purpose aircraft. Shifting priorities have sidelined the F-22 in favor of the F-35, but how will the F-47 fit into the picture? Here are some of the big concerns I have.

This thing will be expensive, posing problems for foreign buyers. The details are still unclear on this aircraft, so we’re not sure if the limitations that faced the F-35 will persist. Since this will be an air superiority fighter, a ground attack jet will still be needed. And given the evolving tech, manned fighters could be rendered obsolete before reaching full deployment.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a sunny Colorado. Today is the 21st of March. And there was just a press conference between American President Donald Trump and American Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, where they announced the launch of a new fighter program called the NGAD, the next generation air dominance fighter. It’s been, dubbed the F 47 because it’s Trump’s the 47th president. 

 But anyway, you can’t make this stuff up anyway. It in theory will be made by Boeing and should come into manufacture in a few years. That’s the goal. Before we go forward and talk about what it can do and implications, let’s talk about how we got here. So if you dial back to the 1990s and the early 2000, the Defense Department realized that they had a window. 

The Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Russian Federation, which emerged from it, was a pale shadow of its predecessors. And so there was going to be an extended period of time where the Soviet slash Russians weren’t going to be able to develop new air products. No new bombers, no new fighters. They did get a couple off the drawing board, but they were never able to produce more than one of them at a time. 

And even now, 35 years later, they only have 12 of some of their more advanced fighters. And that meant you had an opportunity to skip a generation. So Donald Rumsfeld, who was working with the Defense Department at the time, had this idea that we will look at the best technologies we have available right now and build the absolute minimum that we possibly can, and then research the next generation. 

Back at the time, we were dealing with F-15s and F-16s and the two programs that were greenlighted to proceed on that limited production basis were the F-22 air superiority fighter, which I think is one of the most badass pieces of military technology I’ve even heard of. It can hit supersonic speeds without using its afterburners, and all of its weapons are internal bay, so it has the radar cross-section of a small bird. 

I mean, it is bad ass. And then the other one is the F-35 joint strike factor, which is a flying pig. From my point of view, yes, it’s better than what we had, but its range isn’t very good. And the technology that’s gone into it has had all kinds of teething pains, and this has driven up the cost of the fighters to over $100 million per fighter. 

And it’s not very good at doing what it needs to do because its range is so limited. And that’s even before you put external weapons on it. The problem is it’s a Joint Strike fighter. It’s designed for both air to air combat and ground assault. And by being a multi-role platform, yes, you can do more, but you don’t do any of it particularly well. 

So we only made a few less than 200 of the f-22s, even though they are the perfect tool for the job, because we also need ground strike. And so the decision was made to do more and more and more of the F-35s, despite its many, many shortcomings. And that meant looping in lots of allies in order to help defray the overall production cost. 

And that brought it down to $100 million per airframe. Anyway, Rumsfeld and people like him thought, you know, we’ll just build the minimum we possibly can and then launch forward. And then the war on terror happened. And in the war on terror, what we discovered is we don’t need an air superiority con or a fighter against the Taliban because they don’t even have blimps, much less jets. 

But we do need ground strike. And so the F-22 was pushed to the side, kind of stuck with that initial plan of just a limited run. And the F-35 went into mass production. And we’re getting lots and lots and lots of those. Fast forward to today, because of the war on terror, we spent 20 years fighting ground wars, and we weren’t able to put the resources that would have been ideal under the Rumsfeld plan into the next generation. 

We’re only now getting there, took this long, and the end gap is supposed to be an air superiority fighter. The next generation after the F-22. Well, that leaves us with four complications. Problems. The first is cost. We saw the cost of the F-35 go up and up and up and up and up, and the end guard got a really nasty review from an internal Pentagon audit. 

I think it was just last year or the year before where they said it looked like the cost could be upward of $300 million per airframe. And the days of us being able to spread that out across the alliance are gone. The Trump administration is careening very rapidly to breaking most of our alliances, including the NATO alliance, which is where almost all of the F-35 sales we’re making are going. 

And every country that is committed to buying them is now rethinking it. Because if the United States is not going to be there in a real fight, not only are you not getting the implicit security guarantee that you thought you were getting, but if the Americans are responsible for all the tech and all the technicians and all the repair work and all the servicing, all the software and a lot of the weapons, do you really want to be dependent on the Americans at all in this brave new world we seem to be falling into so the F-35 is likely to get even more expensive, and no one is likely to sign up for the end guard at all. Problem two range. This is a black issue. It’s just an issue of, classification. We don’t know what the range of the guard is yet. It is in limited production, very limited, basically handmade. Nothing manufactured. The manufacturing wouldn’t be in for a few years yet. 

Three at the absolute low end. So this is a weapon system for the future, not for tomorrow. And until we know that range, it’s really hard to know if this is going to give us some of the advantages of the F-16 and the F-22, or weigh us down with some of the restrictions of the F-35. We’re just going to have to wait for more details on that. 

The third problem is that the end guard is going to need a complement. It is an air superiority fighter in the vein of the F-22, and we will still need something for ground attack. And if it’s going to be the Joint Strike Fighter, if that’s what we’re going to use for the next 30 years, then that puts some really huge limitations on what the United States can do militarily. 

Its range is just about 600 miles. Not great in terms of deep strike. And if we are moving into a world where the United States is walking away from most of its alliances, then we’re losing all the forward bases that allow us to launch these things in any meaningful way in the first place, which means we will also need a new ground strike jet. And that is an entirely new program that is going to have its own cost structure. And overlaying all of this is the question of technology during the course of the last 60 years. We haven’t seen actually almost 80 years. We haven’t seen a lot of changes. I mean, yes, yes, yes, we’ve gotten better at stealth. 

Yes, yes, yes, our missiles have gotten more accurate. All that’s true. But we haven’t really seen a change in what, a fighter or what a fighter bomber does. Until really recently, in the last few years, we’ve had building breakthroughs in things like materials science and digitization and energy transfer. And we don’t know where this is going to take us in terms of military technology. 

Yet the end guard looks interesting to me. It’s basically like a narrower version of the B-2 bomber, which is a badass piece of equipment, but it’s not a fundamental break. The stealth is cool. Don’t get me wrong, stealth is awesome, but it doesn’t do anything that you wouldn’t expect an air superiority fighter to do. These three breakthroughs in technology are in the very, very beginning stages, giving us drone technology, and we have discovered that the Ukrainians, for less than 20,000 a pop, can build a thousand drones that can saturate a battlefield, or for something closer to $200,000 a pop, develop rocket drones that can strike targets that are about as far away as the F-35 can reach. So we’re seeing these newer technologies come in and we don’t know how they’re going to mature. And so investing billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions into a new manned fighter program, you got to wonder if this is the right call. I’m not saying it’s not. I’m saying we don’t know. And in a world where the United States is walking from its alliance structure, the new systems are probably not appropriate to what bases we’re going to have in a few years. 

I don’t mean this so much as a condemnation of Trump, although there’s plenty of that going around right now, but just a recognition that as our technological envelope evolves, one of two things has happen. Either we develop technologies to match the geography of our deployments, or we change our deployments to match the evolution of the technology. 

And there’s plenty of examples throughout history of both happening. We don’t know where we’re at yet. What we do know is if we try to do both.

Gaza Goes Back to Square One

Photo of Gaza with destroyed buildings

Israel has resumed military operations in Gaza, so any ceasefire or hostage deal that was on the table can be kissed goodbye.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has worsened; much of the housing has been destroyed, food supplies remain critical, and supply chains have been disrupted. Given these conditions and the dense urban area that Hamas operates in, it will continue to have a stream of new recruits that will make elimination a near-impossible task.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hello from Vegas. Just a real quick one today. Earlier this week, the Israelis, went back into Gaza. So we’ve had multiple hundreds of strikes and basically full military operations that began again. And so the, the peace for hostages deal that may have been kind of, sort of in place is clearly gone now. And anyone who’s interested in negotiating a ceasefire or a truce is just going to have to start from scratch. 

Unfortunately. Fortunately, I words are kind of insufficient. Most of the population had tried to return to their homes, only 

discover that, two thirds of the housing stock has been destroyed. And keep in mind that it takes about a thousand trucks a day coming in with food aid in order to keep the population alive. And that at a time when the greenhouses were working, which they no longer are. 

So we’re once again right back into the humanitarian catastrophe. And if you are Israel, we are once again right back into the situation where Hamas is strong. Keep in mind that you’ve got over 2 million people living in an open air prison camp with absolutely no prospects. You can’t get out of the, Gaza Strip. Unless the Israelis specifically allow you almost on a case by case basis. 

And because of that, you’re basically just in this cauldron. It’s a horrible way to live. And it makes it very, very easy for militant groups like Hamas to recruit. So if you think of all the big successes that Israel has had recently, they gutted Hezbollah with a brilliant, long term intelligence operations where they blew up cell phones. 

They’ve gutted the, Lebanese government. The Syrian government has fallen, and with airstrikes, they basically removed all the heavy equipment that Syria has built up over the last 60 years. And Iran is on the back foot throughout the entire region. But Hamas is different because it’s basically in an urban zone and doing door to door clearing of an urban zone, especially when you can tunnel under it is just an order of magnitude more difficult. 

It’s not that Israel’s been unwilling to put the men in the materials to the work to try to root out Hamas. It’s just that as long as there’s 2.3 million people there, Hamas will always, always, always, always be able to recruit more. 

And unfortunately, that just means that a conflict like this doesn’t have an end. It’s just a question of what minimum tolerance the Israelis are willing to put up with in terms of violence. And it appears, at least for this government, that means keeping troops on the ground and active military operations for the foreseeable future.

Dealing With Chinese Drones

Imagine of a drone firing missiles

Drones are all the rage right now and China is jumping on the bandwagon. With Chinese plans to create over 1 million combat-ready drones within two years, should the US be worried?

Drones may seem like a foolproof option, but that’s not the case. There are range, payload, and speed issues to consider, as well as ensuring an accurate guidance and targeting system is in place. The Chinese haven’t quite figured out all of those pieces. You must also factor in the US space and tech capabilities, which could render Chinese drones useless if it came to that.

If you want to make the argument that these drones open new doors for the Chinese, consider these factors. China’s drones would likely limit US naval operations near the mainland, but the Chinese air force already does that. Sure, there might be opportunities to make a little cash by offloading these drones in foreign markets, but not enough to move the needle. The only way I see these drones really impacting much would be if a drone-mothership was created and deployed (which the US is working on, not the Chinese).

All this to say, China’s drone production is impressive in scale, but their effectiveness in naval combat will be limited.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from the air in slow burn. And a glacier in New Zealand just to the north of the town of Glenorchy. Today we are taking a question from the Patreon page. And it is how is the United States going to deal with the absolute scads of drones that the Chinese say that they’re going to build? 

The Chinese official plan, which I have no reason to doubt that they cannot achieve it, is to have over 1 million combat ready drones within two years. First, let’s talk about the nature of that sort of threat. And then second, what the US Navy has to do differently from what it’s uphill, might have to do differently. 

I’m just climbing the marine here. 

First of all, a million is a lot. But keep in mind, as we are learning from the Ukraine war, whenever you’re going to have a weapons platform, you have to choose, largely between payload and range. So the farther you’re going to go, the less of a warhead you can carry. And there’s always detection issues too. So even the new rocket drones that the Ukrainians have been using, which have more weaponry and more kinetic force, really only have a range of, low number of hundreds of kilometers. 

So if you got a million weaponized systems and you can only throw them, a couple hundred kilometers or less, it’s, never going to even enter the defensive envelope. Of an American destroyer, much less an aircraft carrier. Second, in addition to the balance between range and warhead, there’s also the issue of speed. 

For example, the Iranian Shaheed drones, which have been causing a lot of havoc in the Ukraine war, only fly had about 150km a hour. It’s roughly 9100 miles an hour. So, you know, I don’t if you knew this, but naval ships, they move, so move pretty fast. So as in the words of the great man, Mr. Miyagi, best way to avoid a punch is no be there. 

Which brings us to guidance. Something we have discovered over and over in the Ukraine war is it doesn’t matter how many drones you have and how fast they are and how big their warheads are. If they can’t see the target. Most drones today require eyes on. They require a controller. And so if you don’t have a controller with a constant telemetry link to the weapon system, the weapon is just going to spin out of control and crash harmlessly. 

And you know, when you’re talking about naval combat, that, harmlessly means in the ocean, you might like you can have a lot of collateral damage. Now, there are two ways around this. The first is a problem that the Chinese are struggling with, with all of their other weapons systems. The Chinese have a number of long range systems, especially when it comes to, ballistic missiles. 

The problem is targeting. So the United States is really good with its missile forces. If we’re doing something like a ballistic against a land target, you know, you have coordinates. It’s really hard to do anything about that. And if you’re going to use something like a cruise missile, the United States basically loads in geographic information into the brain of the cruise missile. 

And the follow is a programed route to hit its target. When you’re dealing with moving targets, it’s a lot harder. You have to have eyes on. And the problem that the Chinese have is while they do have a whole lot of weapons systems and people and manufacturing capacity, it’s really hard to have eyes on something that’s over the horizon that is moving. 

So everything is dependent upon maintaining that telemetry link and having eyes in the sky, probably in the form of a reconnaissance satellite. And while the Chinese do have the ability to launch and maintain their own satellite fleet, their space weapons systems are woefully nascent. They’re new. And if we were to have a conflict with any of the technologies that the Chinese currently have in place or deployed, you basically have the United States who’s been playing this game for 60 years, take out every Chinese satellite in the sky in a matter of a few days, if not even a few hours. 

And then all of a sudden, all of these longer range weapons systems that the Chinese have are blind and can’t hit anything that can move. And again, that’s way to avoid a punch movie there. Okay. With drones, this is even more problematic. The only way that we have technology today where a drone can reliably get around jamming is to have a fiber optic spool where you literally have a physical cable connecting the drone back several kilometers to the operator. 

But several kilometers is like, you know, the range of seeing the horizon when you’re at sea level. You put it on a boat, you might be able to go a little bit further, but nothing weighs nothing. And you’re going to have a spool that goes out 50 K. You know, that’s already beyond the technology that we have today. 

So like everything the Chinese do, they do it at scale. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a game changer. It may limit what the US Navy can do within sight of the mainland. But I would argue that all this talk about Chinese drones when it comes to naval combat, does not do anything for them at all. That their air force doesn’t do better already. 

So it’s a lot of talk and, it’s interesting because it is a new technology. It will keep evolving, but I think the field where it’s going to be more of an issue is arms exports, because of the Chinese can make lots and lots of these things. They may not be useful, in a sea fight or even in a land fight. 

Although if they decided to invade Russia, I could get curious. But they might be useful as an export product. If the Chinese started sending all kinds of stuff in to say, just to pick something out of random, the African theater and arming groups to achieve this or that, that could go some interesting directions. But make no mistake, the places where the Chinese are going to find customers here are not places that are. 

How should I put this civilization strong? It’s more likely to be in semi stateless areas, which is going to limit the amount of income that they can get from them. And if they start deciding to supply weapons to quote unquote countries. Who’s it going to be? I mean, no one in Latin America has a territorial dispute. We haven’t seen a war in Latin American, not counting the soccer world worth a bunch of people got lost in the jungle. 

I think you have to go back to, like, the 1880s. 

 They get involved in Europe. The Russians, you know, might buy this stuff in scale. But if the Chinese start supplying hundreds of thousands of weapons systems that are finished to the Russians, we’re in a very different world already. Southeast Asia could be fun, but drones with today’s technology really don’t do well in heavy forest or jungles. 

I mean, I tried it. That was an expensive experiment. That just leaves Africa and the opens of places like, say, the Sahel. A booming arms market for a country the size of China. That is not so with today’s technology, with the likely evolution of this technology over the next several years. This is not something I worry about too much. 

What would make this change is not just a general improvement in the range and the payload and the accuracy and all that good stuff, but being able to make, a drone mothership, that has all the normal aspects of a military vessel, but also has the ability to manufacture drones at scale, with its own facilities. 

And that’s something that at the moment, the Chinese are not working on because they haven’t figured out the tech. That is, however, something that the United States is working on with the replicator initiative, which should be operational by the end of 2026.

The Russian Navy Leaves Syria for Benghazi…

Photo of Russian Naval Infantrymen on a boat

There are reports stating the Russian naval fleet might have found a new home (since their last one in Syria is no longer available). This new location is Benghazi, Libya and boy oh boy would I love to see that happen.

Russia has used Syrian ports for decades, but since the new Syrian government is not so friendly to the Russians…they must leave. The only viable option the Russians have is to move the fleet over to Benghazi.

Benghazi doesn’t offer much, other than a place to park. So, no repairs would be done, no significant naval operations could be carried out, and resupplying would be a joke. Oh, and relocating to Libya places the Russian fleet within range of NATO forces.

So, the Russians can hide out in Benghazi for a bit and avoid embarrassment in Syria, but they shouldn’t stick around for too long… or maybe they should.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey Everybody Peter Zeihan, New Zealand, Tongariro Circuit, blah blah blah. This is a quick take. I just found out that, the scuttlebutt in the Middle East is that the Russians are going to relocate their fleet to Benghazi, Libya. Quick background. The Russians have been operating out of the ports of Banias and Tartus in, Syria for about a decade, and they’ve been using those as the primary supply points to participate in the Syrian civil War, where they are responsible for, among other things, carpet bombing civilians and probably killing, somewhere around 100,000 people in Aleppo specifically. 

Anyway, the new government that is taking form is a group of militant groups that are opposed by the Russians. So the Russians are getting the hell out of Dodge because they’re not completely stupid. Anyway, I’m digging this Benghazi story. Let me explain. The fleet, the Russian fleet has to go somewhere. They can’t stay, in Syrian waters, for long. 

And their options are limited. If they were to try to go through the Turkish straits to get to the black Sea, which would be for some of these ships, their home port, that is not allowed, because there is now a war on in the Black Sea. And under the treaty, of Montreal, that the Turks adjudicate and control. 

No warships can come through without Turkish. Get go. And the Turks back. The militant groups that are kicking out the Syrian government and the Russians. So can’t go there. You can sail all the way around Europe, to where the Northern Fleet headquarters are in Murmansk and Archangel. But, the Russian ships don’t have much range, and it’s highly likely that most of the fleet wouldn’t be able to make it. 

So they would have to dock to refuel and resupply and European ports, all of which are NATO and the, the likelihood of a NATO country just seizing the ships very high. So two humiliations that the Russians are trying to avoid. So that leaves Benghazi and Italy, where, again, the Russians are participating in the local civil war. Here’s the thing. 

But Ghazi doesn’t have the necessary port facilities to do full resupply and certainly can’t do repairs. So the Russians would have to build that when they did it in Syria. It took several years and several billion dollars. So in the meantime, the Russian fleet would just sit in Libya, rusting while support facilities are built. And with the way things are going between NATO in Russia, the chances of there being a bit of a spark down the line pretty good, and the Russians will have repositioned their most capable naval assets within easy striking distance of the French Navy and the Italian Air Force. 

So in order to avoid some significant embarrassment today, the Russians are arguably doing the most stupid thing that I could possibly come up with, and I really hope they do it.

Cover photo by Wikimedia Commons

The Chinese Cut Off Drone Exports

Image of a drone firing missiles

The Chinese Government has moved toward implementing an export ban on drones and drone components, with an eye toward making supply issues a particular headache for the United States and the Ukrainians.

In regard to the latter group, Kyiv has had particular success in utilizing drones in their war against Russia. From reconnaissance to swarm attacks to providing targeting data for UAVs, the Ukrainian war effort has been building and burning through thousands of drones.

While the design and rebuild activity is happening primarily within Ukraine, several key components: motors, flight controls, and especially the batteries and made in China. China’s massive supply of affordable parts is what drove the Ukrainians to make up for shortages within their arsenals with drones in the first place, and you can bet Moscow has been pushing China heavily to stop the flow of these parts to Ukraine.

As for the Americans, the Chinese are looking to respond to the bevy of tech export restrictions pushed through by the Biden administration, and Beijing is bracing for an onslaught of new Trump tariffs. Things like drone components are one of the few levers Beijing has in this fight.

But what will the ultimate outcomes be? This is an excellent opportunity for the United States and others in the West to start building out their own manufacturing capacity for these components—a win for both strategic and economic reasons. Even if the Chinese were everyone’s best buddies, the current Chinese system is dying. Literally. The Chinese government cannot hold back the impacts of the collapse of the population growth rate, and the Chinese economy is undeniably slowing down. The global economy’s reliance on Chinese overproduction is coming to an end, regardless of whether anyone wants it to or not.

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

The Future of Naval Tech & War on the Seas

Photo of a US aircraft carrier on the water

The nature of naval warfare is evolving – with advancing drone tech leading the charge – but not all of the world’s navies and regions will be impacted the same.

Drones are all the rage right now, and they come in all shapes, types, payloads, and ranges. But which countries will struggle with these drones the most? The isolated nature of Russia’s fleets leaves them open to attacks, while the US Navy tends to operate away from coastlines and can unite its fleets if needed. The Persian Gulf and parts of the Mediterranean might be hotter than others, but the US has enough regional allies to keep a strategic advantage. The Chinese navy will face geographical bottlenecks (like the first island chain) that will limit their naval reach and projection power.

The US is stuffing another ace up their sleeve with its Replicator Initiative, which would allow US ships to be converted into drone manufacturing platforms. So again, drones are changing the way in which naval battles are fought, but there will be some obvious winners and losers.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey everyone. Good morning from Colorful Colorado. Today, we’re going to take an entry from the Ask Peter forum. Specifically, do I worry about the primacy of the U.S. Navy in a situation where the drone technology being developed for the Ukraine war becomes more widespread? Well, let’s start by saying they’re going to become widespread. We’re only seeing something that’s barely out of the prototype stage right now.

And it is proven that in close quarters, relatively speaking, it is already more than capable of defeating an old-style surface navy. Now, I don’t want to overplay this because the Russian Navy is not great under normal circumstances, and that’s if they could all sail together into a single mailed fist. And they can’t—look at the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Sea, and the Pacific Fleet—all of them independent, all of them having to operate under constrained circumstances.

Now, something to keep in mind about the drones. You’ve got two types: air and naval. Your air-launched drones, at the moment, can’t really carry warheads that are more than 100 pounds. And while that can certainly ruin your day or take out a tank or a building, against a ship, it’s going to be more limited in its ability to be successful.

Keep in mind that ships can move, and if you don’t have over-the-horizon visual capability, just getting the drones to where they need to go is going to be a bit of a problem. So most of the assaults that Ukraine has been launching against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet have been naval. Naval drones don’t have as much range, typically, but they can carry a lot bigger payload.

And since they’re in the water, once they get closer, there’s not a lot that the ships can do about it because they’re used to shooting up at air assets, not down at sea-level assets that are well below the angle that they can fire. So the Russians have to basically counter with small arms. And that would be true for any naval asset.

But keep in mind, there’s this geography issue. Not only are Russia’s navies sequestered from one another, but they’re also in relatively limited bodies of water that are highly contested. So, the Black Sea is obviously the issue of the moment, where the Ukrainians obviously have an outlet on the ocean that is adjacent to where the Russians would like their ships to operate.

But you also have NATO members—Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania—which have significantly more frontage on that body of water than the Russians. So if you marry these new technologies to the assets of NATO and the industrial plants of a country like, say, Turkey, then the Russians simply can’t have anything floating on that body of water at all.

The same holds true to an even greater degree for the Baltic Sea Fleet, where you’ve got NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, basically countering potential naval power. So if we ever get into a situation where there is a fight on the Baltic Sea, every ship that the Russians have will be sunk, probably within the first 72 hours.

It’s a little bit better on the Arctic, but then you’ve got the ice pack. So for a submarine, if you get below the ice pack, you’re probably okay. But Norway’s right there, and anything that’s going to stay on the North Atlantic has to go right by it, and it’s going to get sunk. And then, probably almost as bad as the Baltic, is the Pacific Fleet, which is completely bracketed by Japan.

Anything that’s going to leave from the Vladivostok area—that just leaves one base at a place called Petropavlovsk—but still, in here, which is a sub base where the subs can kind of go off and drop into a trench and hopefully evade detection. That base, which has no road and no rail connection to it whatsoever, could still operate, but that’s just one spot.

And everything basically has to be flown in to support it. So maybe, like, Russia’s—it’s just absolutely hosed. Compare that to the extreme on the other side with the U.S. Navy. We’ve got an Atlantic and Pacific Fleet that can sail through either the canal or around the Americas to unite into a single force if they want to. It tends to also be long-range-based: supercarriers, missile frigates, that sort of thing.

And so they very, very rarely engage a foe that they can see. You’re talking over-the-horizon hundreds of miles away. Well, that pretty much obviates any capability of the air- or sea-based drones in our current imagination of hitting them. Also, they tend to operate in the deep sea. They never go within sight of the coast if they don’t have to.

So there might be some bodies of water that are constrained, where operating there would be heavily restricted, where there are potential foes who could field a drone force. Places that are probably going to be a bit of a problem include, of course, the Persian Gulf. The days of having a carrier there without, you know, having to worry about it are probably gone now.

The Mediterranean could be a little constrained. But keep in mind, the entire northern coast of the Mediterranean are NATO countries, and the entire southern coast are countries that, for the most part, are favorable to the United States: Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia. The one holdout is Libya, and it’s not that Libya’s hostile; it’s that Libya has basically fallen into civil war and is falling apart as a government. Everywhere else that I can already see as a possibility.

Not necessarily because there’s a lot of governments there that are hostile, but it’s becoming a stateless zone in its own way. And the Houthis are probably the best example of that. Just keep in mind that the Houthis of Yemen don’t have an industrial plant. So any weapons they fire are something they’ve brought in from somewhere else. Closer to home, the only thing to really worry about would be the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

And because there are hostile countries there, most notably Venezuela and Cuba. But if, if, if, if, if we ever get to the situation where that is a problem, a couple of things to keep in mind: Number one, most U.S. naval assets aren’t in the Gulf of Mexico, so you don’t have to worry about a base getting closed in.

And second, in the very, very unlikely situation where we have a military conflict in that area, there will be a land invasion of Cuba in a very short period of time. This is not me recommending—let me make this very clear—I think there are much easier ways to get Cuba on our side, if that’s the goal.

But a country with the population and the industrial plant of Cuba could not survive in the face of an American onslaught should it come to it. And really, that’s the only other spot where there’s a constraint. Between geography and allies, the U.S. looks pretty good. That just begs the question of what is the situation for maybe some other countries that have navies.

In the case of the United Kingdom, yes, it’s close to other land borders—the North Sea, the English Channel—they’re not that big of a barrier. But again, Norway, Denmark, France—you know, these are friendly countries, not hostile ones. And in the case of East Asia, things get really dicey. Japan’s okay because all of its ports are on the east side of the island, so they sail out and then come back to wherever they want to.

So they’re pretty much immune to this. But China—China’s got the first island chain, and any vessel that leaves China has to get by Japan or Taiwan or the Philippines or Indonesia or Singapore. Assuming the United States isn’t playing at all, that’s going to be really hard. And one of the things that the U.S. Navy is working on right now is something called the Replicator Initiative, which will turn its ships into not just combat platforms, but manufacturing platforms to produce exactly the sorts of drones that would be needed to sink everything that the Chinese have in a short period of time.

In the case of a war. Hopefully it’ll never come to that, but Replicator is supposed to be operational by the end of calendar year 2027. That’s not that far away.

Israel Attacks Iran, Again – Part 1 & 2

An Israeli F-35I "Adir", the model of aircraft reported to have taken part in the strikes.

Part 1

Recently, Iran attacked Israel, again. And so last night Israel attacked Iran, again. Believe it or not, this is normal AND good news! At least until the Russians come to the party.

Part 2

Now that we’ve had a bit more time to see what happened in Israel’s latest attack on Iran, let’s dive a bit deeper. Israel struck military facilities like missile storage and production sites, but avoided nuclear and oil infrastructure.

This damage will set Iran’s missile capabilities back for a while, but these defenses were lackluster to begin with. A more significant takeaway from this attack was the absence of any meaningful resistance for the Israeli aircraft, which pokes some serious holes in the Russian-made S-300s and similar Chinese models.

Israel’s attack not only diminishes Iran’s military power, but also gave the world some insight as to shifting regional power dynamics.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Austin, Texas. It is the 27th of October, and we’re going to do a follow-on to yesterday’s video about the Israeli retaliatory strike on Iran. Now that we know a little bit more about what was hit, the Israelis were able to target military facilities. They didn’t go after the nuclear program and they did not go after oil facilities.

Instead, their primary targets were facilities that stored missiles and were a critical component in the construction of the missiles that the Iranians like to use. Basically, there’s two types of fuel that you can put in a ballistic missile. The first is liquid fuel. This is cheaper and technically easier, but it’s very dangerous because you can’t store the rocket fuel in the rocket.

If you’re not going to launch in the next couple of days, you generally leave them empty. So, it’s easy to know when the bad guys are going to launch a bunch of missiles because satellite images can show the trucks pumping in the somewhat toxic, very explosive, very dangerous fuel.

Now, the Iranians have moved on from liquid fuel to solid fuel, which is much more stable. You can store the fuel in the rocket indefinitely, but it’s more technically involved, and the Iranians don’t know how to do it themselves. They bought the facilities to make this fuel from China, and now those are mostly smoking holes in the ground after the Israeli raid.

Until these facilities are rebuilt, and given Iran is now under much stricter sanctions than when it acquired these originally, the Iranians will have a hard time running their missile fleets as they have been, which is clearly what the Israelis were aiming for. They may have one or two operational fuel fabrication facilities left, but certainly not at a scale that poses a real threat to Israel.

So, you know, strike one, Iran. The second point to keep in mind is that wherever Israeli fighter bombers went—whether over Iraq, Lebanon, or Iran itself—they took out all the air defenses along the way. Most of the air defenses the Iranians use are called S-300s, which are the second from top-of-the-line system that the Russians produce and export.

The top model is the S-400. The Iranians knew this strike was coming, had plenty of notice, and still couldn’t shoot down a single Israeli jet. Between this raid and the war in Ukraine, where many of these S-300s are in use, we’ve been getting a bit of an awakening for people who have relied on Russian equipment all these years—it simply couldn’t do the job.

All of these air defenses are now smoking holes in the ground. On a larger stage, this has made the Israelis quite confident that whenever they feel the need to establish air superiority, they don’t even need jets—they just need to take out the air defenses since no one in the region has competitive air power.

Looking at the broader strategic picture, the Russians do have some S-400s, but not enough to provide full coverage, and they’ve already lost several in the Ukraine war. Yes, the S-400 is the most advanced air defense system the Russians have, but it’s not that much more advanced than the S-300. More importantly, the Chinese have their local air defenses, the HQ-9 and HQ-22, which are essentially knockoffs of the S-300 floor model, though upgraded in some ways with Chinese technology. We’ve never seen them in actual combat, but now we know the Israelis, who don’t even have a first-rate air force, were able to take out every S-300 they encountered. This suggests that the U.S., with its superior air force, would likely have no trouble operating in a similar environment if push came to shove with China.

Surely this isn’t what the Iranians planned when they conducted their raid on the 1st of October, but they’ve given strategic thinkers a lot to chew on, indicating that air defenses on the other side might not be nearly as interesting or capable as we’ve long assumed. So, you know, as

**Photo of an Israeli F-35I “Adir”, the model of aircraft reported to have taken part in the strikes by Wikimedia Commons.

China, Navy, Nukes, Tech, and Politics

Photo of a submarine emerging out of the water

You’re receiving this video a week after its initial posting on Patreon. If you’d like to get access to this content as soon as it’s released, along with a number of other exclusive perks, click the link below.

Learn more on patreon

Our focus turns toward China today, specifically at the technological struggles facing the Chinese military and manufacturing industry. And yes, we’re starting with the nuclear submarine that sank in port…

The Chinese have been looking to make some upgrades to their technological capabilities across the board, but they’re not gaining much traction. As evidenced by the nuclear submarine that sank near Wuhan, China’s nuclear deterrent system is one area that could use some love. Unlike the US nuclear triad that provides redundancy and security, the Chinese really only have ICBMs to bail them out of nuclear troubles.

While the sinking of that sub is embarrassing, it’s far from the only area that the Chinese could use some help in. China is a manufacturing hub for low-tech stuff, including less advanced semiconductors. However, China has struggled to make much (if any) progress on the chip front, because they lack the expertise and access to operate the necessary machinery.

And things aren’t likely to improve anytime soon. US-China trade tensions are on the rise, and the coming US election isn’t likely to change that…regardless of who wins. With sanctions, tariffs and technological controls limiting China’s capabilities, it will be difficult for them to achieve technological parity with the US.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are free and we will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Salt Creek Beach, just outside of L.A., in California. Today, we’re going to talk about beacon policy, technology, China, and the U.S. elections. Yeah, that’s going to get me in trouble pretty much everywhere.

Okay, so the new news that leaked out over the last few days is that back sometime in the spring, the Chinese new nuclear attack submarine sank at a dock via Wuhan. It was a first-in-class ship, and first-in-class ships are notoriously buggy, but they usually don’t just, you know, sink. They had to fish it out of the river with a bunch of floating cranes.

Now, I don’t want to suggest that submarine engineering is easy, especially nuclear submarine engineering, but I gotta say, like, the definition of a submarine is something that doesn’t sink unless there’s a torpedo in it. So getting the basics wrong on this sort of thing is beyond embarrassing. And if you can kind of put this in context, imagine if in San Diego, a nuclear-powered vessel sank in harbor and the government tried to hide it from everyone. That’s basically what’s gone down here.

So, very, very sloppy engineering work, a sloppy propaganda campaign. But from a strategic point of view, I think it’s really important to understand what the Chinese do and do not have when it comes to nuclear deterrence. They have silos—ICBMs that would launch mostly from western China. They don’t have a functional sub arc, and they certainly don’t have a bomber arc.

So we’re talking about one type of deterrence, not the three that the United States has for redundancy. Now, whether that’s good, bad, or indifferent depends on what you care about, but the whole reason the United States maintains the triad is so that no matter what flavor of attack hits the United States, it always has at least one, probably two, backup plans. That sort of deterrence means countries aren’t going to nuke the United States, even before you consider things like missile defense. China is nowhere close to that, not in number of warheads, and certainly not in delivery methods.

This brings us to the general topological issues that the Chinese are trying to crack here. China has a lot of ambitions, and they say they’re planning on going into this, that, or the other thing. But desire is not the same as performance. So, consider, for example, semiconductors. The Chinese have something called deep ultraviolet technology that they’re pretty decent at, and chips that are in the 80-90 nanometer range or dumber, they can make themselves. But when the chips get more advanced—and that’s like what you put into most automotives, for example—they need not just foreign equipment, but foreign staff and foreign software.

Most of the chips being made today—things that are, as a rule, 20 nanometers and smaller—don’t use that technology unless you want to be wildly inefficient with it. Instead, they use something called extreme ultraviolet lithography, which is a technology basically completely controlled by the Dutch company ASML. Even if the Chinese were able to get their hands on some of those more advanced machines, it’s not like they could operate them. There are staffing issues, experience issues, and software issues. Plus, the Dutch have built their machines with remote kill switches, so they have to be involved in the process.

I don’t mean to say this to insult the Chinese. I mean to say this to insult everyone. No country controls enough of the semiconductor supply chain for anything that’s mid- or high-tier chips to do it themselves. You’re talking about a constellation of thousands of companies and dozens of countries, and it really does take a village. So, the Chinese desire to do all of this in-house? It’s just not going to happen, or at least not without a significant shift in how this technology works. It’s more likely to get more complicated in the future rather than less, which means we pretty much know what’s going to happen with U.S. politics and trade relations, because the parameters of what can and cannot be done with the technology are already known.

So, regardless of who wins the American presidential election—and we all have our own ideas on that—we’re looking at a situation where, on the Trump side, we know that tariffs are the plan. But the Biden administration has never repealed any of the tariffs that Trump put into place. On the Harris side of the equation, we know that technological controls are the preferred tool. But I can’t imagine a President Trump ever repealing those.

So, we’re looking at a tightening technological noose as the United States does something that China just can’t call on other countries for. Because, even at the depths of the Trump administration, when relations with allies were at their lowest, you still had countries that needed the United States for this, that, or the other thing. And so the United States was able to do technological sanctions on things like lithography that basically stalled the entire Chinese technological push.

They were able to use older technology like that deep ultraviolet I mentioned in order to brute force through some relatively low-quality chips that hit a couple of technological markers but were huge energy hogs, took up a lot more space, and generated a lot more heat. Not the kind of thing you’re going to use to reset the technological tables, especially when you start talking about some of the newer things ASML is trying to work on, like high numerical aperture, getting down to a one-nanometer chip. The Chinese don’t even have a finger in that world yet.

It takes everyone, played out across the economy, and there’s only so much the Chinese can do. They just don’t do the high-end stuff at all. They do the low end; they do the assembly. And that’s a multi-trillion-dollar operation—that’s not something to be scoffed at. But that’s not the same thing as parity, nuclear or otherwise.

Could Jet Ski Bombs Change the Way Navies Operate?

*This video was recorded during my backpacking trip through Yosemite in the end of July.

The US Navy and its fleet of carriers (and super-carriers) haven’t had much of a challenge on the seas since WWII. But of all things, it might be some low-tech jet ski bombs that change the way the world’s navies operate.

As the Ukraine War evolves, we’re seeing warfare innovations that could reshape all future conflict. This has come in the form of modified speedboats and jet skis with bombs, used to disable Russia’s Black Sea Navy. And other countries are starting to take note.

For countries with constrained naval access points, this could spell trouble; think of regions like the Black Sea and Baltic Sea or countries with punchy neighbors like Israel and Turkey. These innovations are low-cost and accessible to just about everyone…even worse, they’re difficult to defend against with current tech. So, how does this look for the major naval players?

China is vulnerable to attack from smaller countries due to their port locations. For the US, UK and Japan, there’s less concern given their geographies and strategic partnerships. However, everyone should be updating their defense systems and working to handle this new style of water warfare.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Yosemite. Really doesn’t matter beyond that because I’ve been pushed into my tent by some Thunder boomers for the last hour anyway. Thought I’d use the wet as an excuse to talk about the future of movies around the world. Since World War One—really, World War Two—the carrier has been the backbone of everything that matters, largely because they can project power. More conventional ships like, say, battleships have to get into engagement range, which is, you know, measured in miles or tens of miles, whereas a carrier can launch fighters and fighter bombers from hundreds of miles away and never be in danger itself.

That’s why the Soviets invested so much in trying to break through the American carrier perimeter with things like airlines, cruise missiles, or submarines to questionable effect. But anyway, that was the goal. Now, for the last 30 years, the United States has been the only game in town. It’s not just carriers the United States has. It has supercarriers. It has ten of what most countries consider carriers, which are the core of the Marine expeditionary units, and then another ten of the Nimitz class carriers, which are the ones that, you know, outshoot everybody. One of those has more projection-based firepower than every other navy in the world, with the exception of the Japanese and the British navies, who are allies anyway. So, big difference. And then, of course, the United States is in the process of floating three Ford-class carriers, which will be even more powerful. So, from a conventional naval point of view, the United States is in a league of its own. Might as well be on its own planet. The question is whether that is changing.

One of the things that we have seen in the Ukraine war is that the Ukrainians have been able to modify speedboats and literally jet skis with remote controls, put a couple hundred pounds or 500 pounds of bombs on them, and send them off. In doing so, they’ve basically sunk or incapacitated the vast majority of the Black Sea navy of the Russians. It’s actually worse than it sounds because the Russians moved a lot of ships into the Black Sea just before the war, and those are all gone too. So recently, the Russians abandoned the port of Sevastopol. Basically, they’re not having naval assets in the Crimean Peninsula anymore. They’ve moved everything back to Novorossiysk. But the Ukrainians have already hit Novorossiysk, so they’re probably going to have to move it back to Tuapse, or maybe even Astrakhan. Basically, the Russian Black Sea Fleet is no more. It’s no longer a fleet in being. It no longer has the capacity to project power, and it’s basically hiding in its supposed home waters. Say what you will, but the Ukrainians are creative, and they’re working with very, very little. There’s not much about these naval drones that is particularly sophisticated; we just haven’t seen them patched together like this before. So, to think that this technological innovation is going to stop just in Ukraine is kind of stupid.

So you need to look around the world for other navies that really shouldn’t exist much longer because if they get in a shooting war with a neighbor, all it’s going to take is a few non-dudes on jet skis, and they’re gone. The country that is going to suffer the most from this is Russia. All of Russia’s maritime access points where it has naval ports are contested. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s got that really, really, really crazy long Arctic coastline, but hardly anyone lives there, with the exception of Arkhangelsk and Murmansk, which are the bases for the Arctic Fleet. And both of those are within jet ski range of Norway. Saint Petersburg and the Baltic Sea Fleet are even more constrained. Anything that wants to operate there has to get by Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, and Germany. So yeah, not happening. The only other remaining base is out in Vladivostok, where the Russians are completely circumscribed by the Japanese islands. So, you know, any meaningful conflict involving any of these theaters, and the Russians lose it all very, very, very quickly to jet skis. I mean, that’s just embarrassing. The Russians have never been a naval power because all of its navy points are constrained, and one fleet can’t really reinforce the other, but still, this is just a little over the top.

They’re hardly alone. Basically, there are a lot of countries that are near one another, they don’t like one another, and getting a few motorboats or jet skis together to throw things out of whack is a really good plan. So, for example, if the Israelis and the Turks don’t find a way to get along, both of them can largely decimate the regional navies. This is a bigger problem for Turkey because it’s on the Black Sea, and that means it has to have good relations with not just the Russians and the Georgians, but the Romanians and the Bulgarians. And of course, then there’s the Greeks. The Aegean Sea is probably going to be a no-go zone for the Turkish Navy, which basically makes it really important for the Turks to get along with Israel. Otherwise, they won’t have a navy at all.

But the real fun starts in the Persian Gulf, where Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman can basically, whenever they want to, bomb each other’s navies. Not that any of them have navies, but it’s a commercial thing. All of these countries are dependent upon the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to get crude out, and now it takes really, really low-tech stuff to interrupt it. But the real, real crazy exciting stuff is going to happen in East Asia because every Chinese port is on the wrong side of the first island chain. That’s the line of islands going south from Japan to include Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia. I would look to Indonesia and the Philippines to really explore these technologies because they’re not naval powers, but anyone can buy some bombs on a jet ski, and all of a sudden, all this money that the Chinese have been investing in their navy is completely pointless.

Now, of course, if you’re talking about the big three navies in the world, that’s the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Those are the three big naval powers. The game might be a little different. One of the reasons why these three countries are the world’s biggest naval powers is because of their positioning. Obviously, Japan and the United Kingdom are islands, so they have to have a navy, and then the United States is basically on a continent more or less by itself from a strategic point of view. Well, in the case of Japan, all of its ports are on the east side of the island, so they’re out of jet ski range. For the United Kingdom, as long as they get along well with Norway, Denmark, and France, there’s nothing to worry about there, and that’s one of the many reasons why NATO tries to keep an eye on all of these relationships. And to be perfectly blunt, the French and the Brits—there’s a lot of bad water under the bridge there, but they’re not about to go bombing one another, and the Danes, the Norwegians, and the Brits have gotten along well for centuries, so that’s probably okay.

There’s still the open question, though, of where can you operate? Just because you can get your ship out of port doesn’t mean you can do anything with it because if you come in range of a foreign coastline, the jet skis may very well come out. So we’re going to have to see a counter-revolution in naval technology here. I don’t want to go so far as to say the age of the supercarrier is over because those things are really tough to sink, and they are really fast, and they are really useful. But if someone’s coming at you with a fleet of jet skis, you don’t have the right weapons for that. There’s nothing on the ships or even in the ring of ships that supports them that can shoot down at an angle to engage these things, so we’ll need something new.

Now the Navy is working on something called the Replicator initiative, which isn’t simply going to field a bunch of drones; it’s going to turn all of the major surface combatants into drone manufacturing centers, so they can kick out dozens of these things in a few hours, is the theory. And if that happens, you get some serious drone-on-drone action. While using a jet ski against a capital ship is a big bang for your buck, using a small drone against a large drone is an even bigger bang. So, according to the Navy, within two years, Replicator should be online, at least in a prototype fashion. We’ll see what it looks like then. It’s all a question of whether or not the existing naval powers can innovate at the speed that the upstarts are. I can tell you this for sure: they’re putting a budget behind it because they don’t want to lose those big boats.

All right, that’s it for me. Until next time.