Ted, I don't want to start an argument, we could take any passing of facts/websites off to email if you want. But I've read previously that during the height of the cold war when number of nuclear weapons was greater than 75k that there was a real possibility that you could cause humanity to go extinct. However at current numbers of 15k, the likelihood of getting everyone is quite low. Not trying to argue there is anything good about it, or 98% to 99% of of the pop isn't gone, but 1 to 2% still leaves 100 million people.

Looked quickly at one website which calculates that 1) using every nuke just can't do it with kinetic energy damage, you couldn't even guarantee covering 2% of the world's land mass where the heat/pressure wave does it, although that's good enough for every major city (but not all urban areas). 2) radiation covers a bigger area but it's still not enough, and the really bad effects half life away within months (ie you don't need to hide long in a shelter). Second, unless both sides really to spread the pain to everyone, many places in the southern hemisphere just don't get winds from the northern hemisphere easily. So, a place like S. America isn't going to be a priority target and wind patterns won't carry much radiation. 3) worst case is chance of nuclear winter, but at the equator (which runs through some pretty hot places of the earth), temperature drop is likely 10 deg F which while bad doesn't stop all food production.

Again, full nuke attack could end N. America, Europe, Russia, China, etc. But not likely going to cause extinction of the whole race.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 31, 2025 - 08:12 pm: Edit

At maximum nuclear strength back in the Cold War, the rumors of extinction were massively overstated. There were never enough to “destroy the world five times” or any other number you wanted. That was an old fable derived from a theoretical formula that if the biggest bomb hit the bast target, you would kill some. NUmber of people. Then you divided the world population by that number and voila, as the total arsenal passed 300 or so you could kill everyone if everyone lived in cities the size of the biggest city (then about six million) and the two million survivors of each explosion moved to a new city which when it reached six million was also hit.

Now, the real problem is that without much high level thinking you could create a scenario in which the three quarters of the population that survived a maximum 1980 exchange were so @#$&ed that they gave up in desperation after the power grid, legal system medical system, and food delivery systems collapsed and just sat there until they died.

Destroying civilization is much easier than destroying population, and modern people don’t do well in a Stone Age Wild West.

Subsistence farmer in areas without paved roads or electricity would barely notice, then or now.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, October 31, 2025 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Considering the idiocy of Climate Change, we have to wonder how accurate their claim (with the then technology) about a Nuclear Winter..

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 31, 2025 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Nuclear winter was disproven by the national academy of science report decades ago. The NW theory did not account for wind, gravity, sunlight, oceans, rain, or rotation of the Earth. The maximum effect would have been 12 degrees C and only in the middle of continents. Coastal regions would have seen negligible effects.

The catastrophic effects on society and civilization made effects on population trivial.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 03:39 am: Edit

Is it not easiest to just say X number of Nuclear Warheads detonated in a War would Move the First World Nations into Second World Nations and X x Y number of Warheads detonated would move First and Second World Nations into Third World Nations**.

X x Y x Z Warheads wold leave eveyone to levels of despair as mentioned in SVCs 8.12 post?

The survivors would envy the dead.


** - Third World Natinons would still lose something - but it would bring the entire nation down - rather than just Cities/Capitals etc.

Threads was an excllent BBC Drama/TV Film set in the 1980's (there was an American equivalent too) which goes through the numbers and the effects - pretty chllling to watch.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 04:03 am: Edit

There are many ways to use warheads, and saying x does Y is too simplistic. How did you use x number of warheads? Too many scenarios with wildly divergent effects.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Parts of Ukraine remain uninhabitable by people because of the Chernobyl Meltdown. A couple years ago, Russian troops tried digging trenches there and were exposed to residual radiation from that disaster, thirty five years before (if I remember the numbers right).

Plenty of atomic weapons are going to be awfully dirty, particularly older ones that haven't had proper interim maintenance.

Blanketing large regions with radioactive fallout may leave them uninhabitable, or at the least, leave people who are forced to remain there unacceptably vulnerable to cancers and other radiation induced health problems.

On top of that, with global wind/weather patterns, much of the great "Bread Basket of the World" lies in areas that are generally downwind of places that are likely nuclear targets, should Russia and NATO/US exchange.

We are wise to fear nukes, in my opinion.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Why do nuclear weapons exist? Because they are cheaper.

One bomber can do what thousands did less completely in 1944. Tac nukes can stop Russian tanks divisions and cost much less to buy than a reinforced mech brigade, and cost a pittance to keep around during peacetime compared to six thousand salaries.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 06:42 pm: Edit

One the atomic genie was let out of the bottle (and to be clear here, the U.S. wasn't the only country prying at the stopper in the early '40s), proliferation was inevitable. International distrust was and remains too high to allow for multilateral disarmament between the superpowers, and smaller nations like North Korea and Israel see them as a final deterrent against conventional invasion by hostile neighbors.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Yeah, if Iran ever hit Israel with a mass casualty event, Israel is likely to turn Teheran or Qom into a radioactive parking lot.

And Oct 6 came close. The link to Iran wasn’t QUITE solid enough, but the Israeli cabinet did discuss giving Iran a nuclear spanking.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, November 01, 2025 - 11:03 pm: Edit

If this violates the ADB, Inc. policy on NOT going political, I do apologize and ask that it be taken down.

That said, if Israel HAD given Iran a "Nuclear Spanking," what would the response have been, both here in the 'States and abroad?

In the name of honesty, I've long questioned the actions of various Israeli governments. Please note, though, that it is the GOVERNMENTS, and most certainly NOT people who are Jewish, so this isn't anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, I recognize that anti-Semitism is VERY real and a continuing threat to good people, both here in the United States and abroad. Thing is, how much of a swelling of anti-Semitism would there have been IF, as you put it, the Israeli government had given Iran a Nuclear Spanking...

How many more innocent people here in the United States and around the world, would have been threatened or killed over being Jewish...

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, November 02, 2025 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I think if Israel had popped a nuke on Iran, we'd all be turning to the last chapter in the Bible to find out 'what happens next'.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, November 02, 2025 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Perhaps not.

Iran is listed by a number of sources to be the fastest growing Christian population in the world.

With an annual growth rate of 20% per year, there are more than one million Christians (predominantly Roman Catholic) living in Iran today.

Iran is also listed as the nation leading the world in closing mosques.

No need to nuke Iran, its becoming A Christian nation.

There has been talk of Africa becoming Christian, but none of the annual growth rates exceed that of Iran.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, November 03, 2025 - 04:06 am: Edit

Islamic theocracy gives them misery, so they are locking for salvation elsewhere.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 03, 2025 - 09:11 am: Edit

A BIT OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Iran is the center of Nestorian Christianity, and most of the converts in Iran became Nestorians. This comes from Nestorius, once a patriarch of Constantinople (428-431), the equivalent of a pope, but for the eastern church. He was declared a heretic and exiled to Iran.

Muhammad grew up in a Nestorian world, was told he was a prophet by an Nestorian priest, and a few bits of Islam match a few bits of Nestorianism. Nestorian Christianity is the Christian branch closest to Islam, and the transfer would be easier than a Moslem trying to become a Catholic or a Protestant.

Nestorianism includes a few similarities to Zoroastrianism, which is also based in Iran. Shia Islam is amazingly close to Zoroastrianism; Shia absorbed a lot of Zoroastrian rituals and holidays. (Those Zoroastrian bits are why Shia is different from Sunni.) Some of the Iranians leaving Islam became Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrians and Nestorians get along swell as Zoroaster (the man who founded it) is close to the Nestorian vision of Jesus, which is very different from the Catholic or even Baptist vision of Jesus.

No more discussion of religious doctrine. I just wanted you to understand that the new Christians in Iran are very different from the Baptists and Catholics in the US.

If anyone really wants to know the specific and controversial difference between Catholic and Nestorian Jesus, email me and I will tell you (as a matter of history not faith), but be warned that a lot of American Christians regard it as an explosive topic that is most definitely not something to discuss in Sunday School. It is regarded as an extremely offensive heresy. Yes, such things still exist in 2025. If any subject would incite a placid American Christian to a violent rage this would be it. Be careful.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, November 03, 2025 - 11:36 am: Edit

And I, for one, would like to keep them from throwing the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at me; I'd prefer for them to save it for the Vorpal Bunny.

(Nervously look over my shoulder for a giant animated foot...)

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, November 03, 2025 - 04:31 pm: Edit

STOMP.

Jeff should have looked up.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, November 03, 2025 - 10:03 pm: Edit

(as much as I'd like to call it a mere flesh wound... )

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 04, 2025 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Information Warfare: Russian Doubts and Fears
November 4, 2025: After four years of war in Ukraine, Russian leaders and a growing number of civilians are frustrated, angry, disillusioned and ready to quit. Over a million Russian soldiers have been lost to death, desertion, capture, disability or illegally leaving the country. Economic sanctions crippled the Russian economy and drove an increasing number of Russians into poverty. The government depleted its cash reserves by spending m0re and more money on cash bonuses to obtain soldiers and make ever higher payments to families of soldiers killed in Ukraine.
Several million Russians left the country, some for good. The government increased restrictions on who could leave and military age men found ways to get past that. Those caught were forced to join the army, and their reluctance to fight resulted in officers receiving orders to shoot soldiers who refused to fight. That policy didn’t last once it was realized that threatening to shoot armed and desperate men could and sometimes did result in reluctant troops firing at their officers. There were not a lot of these incidents, but news travelled fast among war weary troops and civilians back home. The internet made it easier to spread the bad news, even after the government made it illegal to say bad things about the war effort. A few complainers were prosecuted, but that backfired when online complaints and protests increased.
The sanctions recently got worse as NATO countries lowered the price they would pay for Russian oil. If Russia refuses to accept the lower prices, customers have plenty of other sources. The Russian government is broke, unpopular and running out of solutions to remedy all these problems. The Russian public and economists know there is a solution; get the troops out of Ukraine. That could be painful because over the last year Ukrainian leaders, soldiers and civilians have been demanding that peace now involves Russian soldiers leaving all of Ukraine, including Crimea and the eastern provinces Russia has occupied since 2014. A year ago Russian leader Vladimir Putin would have dismissed such demands. Currently that appears to be a reasonable price to pay for peace, an end to sanctions and a chance to repair the damage four years of war have done to the Russian economy and military.
One generally ignored reason for the poor performance of Russian troops in Ukraine is the endemic corruption in the Russian military. These wasteful practices have been around for a long time and explain the tradition of poor performance by the Russian military. Young men from wealthy families can buy their way out of dangerous situations, like being sent to a combat zone. That costs about $500. If you do end up in a combat zone, paying the right person over $10,000 will get you a certificate of combat injuries and a medical certificate that gets you out of the military. If you stay in uniform, you can obtain various forms of special treatment by paying bribes. It costs nearly a thousand dollars to get extended leave from military service to visit family and friends. While in uniform you can pay bribes to obtain promotions, certificates of physical fitness or a military driver’s license for those who really don’t know how to drive. Bribes will get you out of trouble for being caught with a cell phone in a c
Most Russian soldiers don’t have access to the kind of cash required to bribe their way out of trouble or danger. Poor soldiers die while soldiers with wealthy parents not only survive but come home with purchased certificates of honorable combat service.
Bribes are also used to avoid unpleasant or embarrassing discussions. For example, a decade ago there was an effort to modernize the military. That included developing methods to reduce corruption. It turned out that there was no practical way to decrease or eliminate corruption because too many people in the military and corrupt, ineffective defense industries grew prosperous from the bribes.
Corruption and poor management have created major problems. Many officers are incapable of, or uninterested in following suggestions for improving combat capability. Many senior officers are still more concerned with getting rich than building modern post-Cold War armed forces. Defense industry officials are apparently incapable of sustained competence and new weapons are either not developed effectively or built in a shoddy fashion. The troops have been complaining about this for years while reform efforts do little about it. The critics of this situation want more realism applied to the problems in the military, especially the corruption and shabby Russian defense industries.
Meanwhile, since the 1990s, a military modernization effort has been underway as the government realized it had to do something about rapidly aging military equipment. In many cases, these purchases are essential because buying new equipment and weapons stopped, with a few exceptions like ballistic missiles, during the 1990s. Because of that, most of the armed forces were still using Cold War era weapons and equipment manufactured in the 1970s and 80s. Fortunately, even older 50s and 60s era equipment was junked because the size of the armed forces shrank 80 percent in the 1990s. Because Russian defense industries, the preferred suppliers, were never world class, the Russian military was usually getting updated Cold War equipment that was not competitive with the new generations of weapons and accessories Western forces were receiving.
It was believed that, by the end of 1990s, at least a third of the Cold War era equipment would be replaced. In some categories, especially those requiring new technology, over 80 percent of the older equipment was replaced. The government had been telling the military about these big plans and when they didn’t deliver, morale suffered. This happened quickly in the navy because officers and sailors had been told that money would be available to more ships and could spend more time at sea. It turned out that the existing ships couldn’t handle heavy use and workload. That meant there had to be more new ships or expensive and extensive refurbishment of existing warships. After the 1990s the air force resumed long range air patrols over areas off the Russian coast, which had not seen Russian navy or air force activity since the 1980s. Since 1991 until the Ukraine War, Russian warships spent most of their time tied up at dock, meaning an entire generation of sailors has little experience at sea. This spells defea
The big problem was that the new equipment that has been received was not impressive. The troops could go on the Internet and get video and tech specs for a lot of the contemporary Western gear and the Russian equivalents rarely looked good in comparison. But at least they aren’t stuck with aging Cold War era equipment that rarely worked.
The Russian armed forces have already come to grips with the fact that it will never return to the glory days of the Soviet Union, which dissolved in 1991. The army was called the Red Army back then and the mighty Soviet naval force came to be known as the Red Fleet. Back during the Cold War, the armed forces had five times as many troops, over five million of them. Before 1991 the military received 10-20 percent of the national GDP, which was estimated to be about two trillion dollars. No one is sure of the exact amount, as the communists were not big fans of accountants and accurate financial reporting. Currently, Russia is playing by West European rules when it comes to military spending, meaning no more than 3-4 percent of GDP going to the military before the Ukraine invasion. With a $2.1 trillion dollar economy that continued to grow, the generals and admirals expected a lot more cash to work with. But most of this money went to replace Cold War era weapons, which were considered out-of-date and of limited use.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 04, 2025 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: Ukraine Goes Fishing For Drones
November 4, 2025: The 1922 Russian invasion of Ukraine was the first major war between industrialized nations since World War II ended in 1945. Russia expected a quick and easy victory, as invaders often do. They underestimated the ability of the Ukrainians to stop the invaders and eventually push the Russians out. Successfully defending their homeland required speedy and successful innovation. One of those enhancements was the use of fishing nets to protect valuable vehicles, positions or movement routes from drone attack. This year the Ukrainians began widespread use of nets to protect military positions, vehicles and routes from drone attack.
Previously metal nets or rolls of fencing were used to protect vehicles from drones. This was more expensive than fabric fishing nets and added more weight to the vehicle. These nets are still used but the Ukrainians realized that nylon fishing nets are cheaper, lighter and more rapidly deployed to snare the propellers of attacking drones and demobilize them. Some of these enemy drones were still largely intact and could be modified to become Ukrainian drones. Many drones snagged in nets are shot a few times with rifles or pistols but many are simply rendered useless by the nets.
The Russians were the first in 2023 to use fishing nets for protection, but they did not expand their use of nets significantly. In 2024 Russian troops could be seen putting nets over some movement routes and, once more, did not use this technique widely. This year the Ukrainians have rapidly expanded their use of nets and the Russians are trying to catch up.
Modern warfare has been radically changed by the introduction of First Person View/FPV. These drones are an omnipresent aerial threat to armored vehicles and infantry on foot. Each FPV drone costs less than a thousand dollars. Operators use the video camera on the drone to see what is below and find targets. Armed FPV operators are several kilometers away to decide when their quadcopter FPV drones will drop explosives on an armored vehicle, which has thinner armor on top, or infantry in the open or in trenches. To do so, the drone operators often operate in pairs with one flying behind the other and concentrating on the big picture while seeking a likely target. When such a target is found by the reconnaissance drone, the armed drone is directed to the target. The two FPV drone operators are usually in the same room or tent and can take control of new drones, which are lined up and brought outside for launch when needed. The reconnaissance drones are often unarmed so they can spend more time in the air to seek a target.
The Ukrainians developed the FPV drone in 2022 when only a few FPV drone attacks were recorded. The Ukrainian Army was the first to appreciate the potential of FPV drones. By the summer of 2023 the Russian Army also began to use FPV drones in greater numbers. Since then, the number of FPV drone attacks has grown exponentially on both sides. By early 2024, there were over 40,000 Russian FPV drone attacks and the Russians kept video records of each one. Only twelve percent of those attacks led to the destruction of the target, which could be a vehicle or group of infantry or even a sniper who was firing through a window from inside a building. In this case the armed FPV drone would fly through the window and explode in the room the sniper was in. The only defense from this was having a nearby open door the sniper could run to or dive through as the FPV drone approached. Sometimes that isn’t possible because the armed FPV drone is coming down from above the window and then in. You don’t see those coming until it until it’s too late.
Several million drones are being built this year. The total for 2024 was 1.5 million drones and this year production will nearly double. There have been problems. Chinese component producers are having a hard time keeping up and, this year, to assist the Russians, China halted sending drone components to Ukraine. Suppliers in Europe, the United States and elsewhere were quickly found. At least 70 percent of Ukrainian drones are built entirely in Ukraine, and the rest from imported parts or whole assemblies. Some Ukrainian firms have improvised by using plywood and similar materials for their drones. For the FPV First Person View drones, cheaper is better if the drone can hit its first and only target. Most Ukrainian drones are FPV models, which are considered a form of ammunition.
Both sides now use the FPV drones but there are substantial differences on how the FPV drones, are put to work in combat. The Ukrainians seek out high-value targets like armored vehicles, electronic warfare equipment, anti-aircraft systems and storage sites for munitions or other supplies. Russian trucks carrying supplies are another prime target.
This new threat had led to work on improved defensive measures. First priority goes to Electronic Counter Measures/ECM systems which armored vehicles, trucks and even troops on foot require to survive FPV drone attacks. There is another problem when the attacker changes the control frequencies their drone use for effective remote control. This is more of a problem for Russian defenders than Ukrainian as the Russians are controlled by slow bureaucratic leaders and production systems while the Ukrainians are much more flexible. Many FPV drones have backup systems for these situations that include returning to the launch site or completing an attack on a target that has been sighted and the FPV drone is already headed for. This means the range of the defensive ECM signal must be more than 100 meters to avoid getting hit by a FPV drone programmed to continue heading for the target if its control signal was jammed or lost because of FPV drone equipment failure.
Another requirement for adequate defense is the presence of metal screens or grills to defeat FPV drone attacks that get past the protective ECM signals. Note that the thinnest armor is over areas on the top side of the tank, particularly the turret and especially behind the turret, where the engine is. Damage the engine so that the tank can no longer move, and the suddenly immobile target becomes easier to destroy. Tank crews will often abandon their immobile vehicle. Then there are additional effective protective measures for vehicles. These include Barbeque and Bubbles structures erected over tanks and other armored vehicles to halt or diminish the impact of drone attacks.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 04, 2025 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Naval Air: US Carrier Fleet Drops to Ten Ships
November 3, 2025: Delays in building new Ford-class CVN nuclear-powered aircraft carrier carriers means that, within a year, the U.S. Navy would have only ten carriers rather than the usual eleven. The first ship of this class, the USS Ford, entered service in 2017. The new USS Kennedy was supposed to enter service last July, but that has been delayed to March 2027. The next three are supposed to enter service in 2029, 2032 and 2036. Each of these new carriers will replace one of the older Nimitz class ships.
Last year the USS Kennedy CVN 79, the second of the new Ford-class carriers, was 18 months late, in part because the navy decided to delay ordering additional Ford-class carriers. The navy could not afford to build as many Fords as it wants as quickly as it wants. This is in part due to the many problems the USS Ford CVN 78 encountered on its way to active service. The delay in buying more Fords also costs more money because suppliers can only offer discounts if they are guaranteed long-term orders.
The navy has a difficult time getting those discounts because the primary budget problem is unpredictable financing. Congress has more demands for funding than can be afforded. The political process is one of continual negotiations to determine who gets what. In the last few years, the defense budget has been increasing, as a result of the Ukraine War. The budget for 2026 is $962 billion. That’s up from the pre-Ukraine 2021 budget of $705 billion. Aircraft carriers are the most important and expensive ships for the navy. The navy also needs destroyers and frigates to provide the escort component of a Carrier Task Force. There’s usually at least one SSN/nuclear powered attack submarine for the escort force.
Another major expense is the new F-35 fighter-bombers replacing many of the existing, and older, aircraft carried on all nuclear carriers, including the Nimitz class carriers the Fords are replacing. The F-35 is a troublesome aircraft due to the larger maintenance and spare parts needs for its many new features, yet the planned budgets for its spare parts buys were significantly cut back before significant numbers of F-35’s were placed in service. This means that large numbers of its spare parts are shuffled from carrier to carrier so those assigned to trouble spots constantly carry far more than carriers in less dangerous areas. The result is that the overall proportion of serviceable F-35s has dropped to the 50-55% range.
Buying carriers and F-35s in groups or blocks must be guaranteed in order to get the large block buying discounts which often exceed a billion dollars. Congress doesn’t like to see so much of the military budget tied up with block buy guarantees. If the navy can make a convincing case for block buys, the legislators will go along. It’s a difficult process to negotiate and the Ford negotiations are not over yet. The navy is also building three more Fords, CVN-79 Kennedy, CVN-80 Enterprise and CVN 81 Doris Miller, which should benefit from the problems encountered by the Ford and apparently solved by the time USS Kennedy enters service in 2025.
Introducing a new ship, especially a large ship like a carrier, is a complex and often painful process. Fords are finally emerging from that process. At the end of 2022 the first Ford, USS Ford/CVN 78 finally left for its long delayed operational stress test cruise. This meant two months at sea, operating as a fully functional aircraft carrier. This cruise revealed more equipment flaws; the main ones being continued problems with the EMALS catapults and the associated arrestor gear. That was not expected as the recent repairs to four JBD/Jet Blast Deflectors mounted on the flight deck were monitored and found to have worked. The JDBs are relatively ancient tech, first introduced in the 1950s as more powerful jet aircraft became standard on aircraft carriers and deck crews needed protection from the dangerous blasts of heat coming out of jet engines as the aircraft prepared to take off. In August 2022 the Ford JBDs were found to have defective components that corroded and caused JBDs to fail prematurely. Subs
There seemed to be no end of problems that delayed this operational stress test cruise, which is meant to demonstrate that the Ford, the first of a new class of carriers, is ready for decades of service. The stress test cruise showed that the Ford could operate under simulated combat conditions, but not as effectively as existing Nimitz class CVNs. Nimitz uses older tech while the Fords were equipped with updated versions of many key items, some of which didn’t perform as expected and, of those, some were predicted to fail with those predictions ignored. There were several reasons for this, starting with poorly thought out new technology that was not adequately tested before being accepted for installation on the Ford. These flawed items included new catapults, arrestor systems and elevators that brought munitions to the flight deck where they were attached to aircraft. There were some other problems with radars and engines, but these proved easier to fix than the flight deck equipment. The JBDs were not new
The growing list of problems grew, and delays kept Ford from entering service. The original deployment date was 2018 and many of the delays involved getting all the problems resolved for the 2022 cruise. Until 2021, it was feared that 2024 might be a more realistic deployment date. Ford made its first deployment in May 2023 and it lasted eight months because the carrier was sent to the Mediterranean where there was unrest in Gaza and Lebanon because of unexpected Hamas attacks on Israel.
Meanwhile, work continued on the other three Fords. The USS Ford avoided construction delays by borrowing components from those stockpiled for the second Ford-class carrier, the USS Kennedy. None of the borrowed parts were exotic, but the Ford did not have enough available to deal with all the needed modifications and repairs required to meet the 2022 deployment date. The parts problem was resolved in time to meet the 2022 deadline, or so it was thought.
Ford has successfully completed many tests initially. Ford underwent the three required FSST/Full Ship Shock Trials test explosions in mid-2021 and examination of the Ford after the last explosion was described as successful, with less damage than expected. USS Ford had developed a reputation for being the cause of unwanted firsts. This applied to the frequent delays in carrying out the Ford FSST. In early 2020 the navy asked for another delay in performing mandated shock tests because it was feared that, while most of the ship could probably handle the explosion, this would damage some of the equipment with problems that were still being fixed. An FSST was supposed to reveal what equipment was not sufficiently built or installed to handle shock as well as confirming that the hull and ship can handle the stress.
One of those sensitive systems was the new AWE/Advanced Weapons Elevators. These high-speed elevators were more sensitive to shock damage. The navy wanted to delay shock tests until the second Ford-class carrier entered service in the mid-2020s because, it admitted, it was unsure how badly shock tests would damage new systems and design features unique to the Ford class. Five of the seven elevators were fixed by the time the first shock test took place. Work was still under way with one of the radar systems that was not at risk because of FSST. The results of the first shock test were reassuring but did add to the list of replacement components that the Ford builders did not have handy, thus the need to borrow those components from the Kennedy rather than wait for new ones to be manufactured and delivered.
A ship, especially a warship that has a lot of problems, is often referred to as a cursed ship. The USS Ford, the first of the class, became a major disaster rather than a more effective new ship design. The number and severity of problems were certainly cursed at often enough by those who built or now serve on the Ford. It was not supposed to be that way.
Several innovative new technologies were supposed to have made the Fords more effective and cheaper to operate than the previous Nimitz class. Two of those new technologies; EMALS/Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System catapults and the new AAG/Advanced Arresting Gear that handles landings more effectively, were disappointing. The navy believed it solved these problems after they had carried out more than 10,000 launches with the problem prone EMALS and AAG. One thing the first cruise provided was more practice for launch with recovery crews, and that was the case this time.
The AWE high-speed electromagnetic ammunition elevators, for getting explosive items to the deck more quickly, failed multiple times. All the elevators are now operational and able to move more munitions from the magazines to the flight deck twice as quickly as the elevators used on the previous Nimitz CVNs.
There were lesser problems with the nuclear propulsion system, the new dual X and S band radar and several other systems have all combined to make the Ford unable to do the job it was designed for. The propulsion and radar problems were eventually fixed.
The Ford flaws also caused some unexpected modifications to the new F-35C stealth fighter. This made it possible for the F-35C, the model designed for carrier operations on the existing Nimitz class CVNs, to survive using the cranky landing equipment unique to Fords. Eventually the navy compiled a list of 60,000 lessons learned while building and trying to get the Ford ready for service. That ultimately meant Ford was four years behind schedule.
As of 2022 the navy believed the EMALS problems were solved. Just to be sure, the Ford underwent months of intensive use to confirm that the capability and reliability problems EMALS suffered from were indeed fixed. Many EMALS problems were fixed but some major ones remained. The worst of these is the fact that if one EMALS catapult develops problems, all four EMALS catapults are out of service until the malfunctioning one is fixed. That was not a problem with steam catapults. Testing and tinkering with EMALS had, by 2021, led to over 8,000 successful launches with EMALS and recoveries with AAG. Despite that, more work was required before the EMALS could match and then exceed the steam catapult when it came to handling heavy use, like during combat operations. An EMALS failure became less of a problem when fixes were made so one EMALS catapult failing only put two catapults out of service until the problem was found and fixed. Eventually that is being reduced to one EMALS catapult failing and not causing ano
Fixing the AWE weapons elevators was still underway at the time of the FSST. At that point all eleven of the elevators were moving, which was progress, but several of them were still not certified for regular use. By the end of 2021, all elevators were for service. That was tested when all eleven elevators were used to load 1,200 tons of munitions into the magazines. This required 1,400 trips by the elevators over nearly three days. This was much faster than using the older elevators found in the Nimitz.
The older elevator design, used successfully for decades on existing Nimitz class carriers, moves up to 2.3 tons of ammo from the magazines to the deck at a speed of 30 meters a minute. The new elevators each move 10.9 tons to the deck at 45 meters a minute. The new elevators were meant to increase the number of combat sorties by 30 percent over 24 hours. At the end of 2018, the navy said all the elevators would be working by July 2019. That did not happen because it turned out the elevators were not built to spec and major repairs were still underway to fix that. This was a problem that could have been avoided if the navy had built an elevator ashore to test the design before proceeding with the construction of the carrier. That was predicted to be a mistake and it was. Many of the problems with the current errors are because construction was sloppy and not caught by quality control personnel.
The nuclear propulsion system problems were the kind that only get discovered once the ship is at sea for an extended period. To a certain extent that is also true with the new dual-band radar. The EMALS problems were more fundamental and even though a test EMALS was installed on land first and tested, it was not tested thoroughly enough. The AAG landing arrestor system also used new technology like EMALS and performed poorly at sea for the same reasons, sloppy design, and testing. The AAG is now considered reliable. There are still questions about how well EMALS will perform once the Ford is declared ready for deployment. That means heading overseas with its Carrier Task Group escorts and operating at least as effectively as the older Nimitz class carriers it is to replace.
The nuclear reactor problems were fixed but there were still problems with the dual-band radar. In the meantime, the next Ford class carrier will revert to the original two separate radar systems instead of the theoretically more efficient and less-expensive new design.
Some of the F-35C problems were minor in comparison. Sturdier jet blast deflectors had to be installed to deal with much higher heat levels generated. It was necessary to rearrange space on the hangar deck to provide secure limited access areas for work on highly classified F-35 components. The needed F-35C mods have already been made, tested, and approved on one Nimitz class carrier. This problem was mainly allocating enough time and money to do it for the first Ford class carrier and all subsequent ones.
USS Ford was six years late. Many of those delays could have been avoided if many of these new technologies were not installed on the first of the Ford class. Originally these new technologies were to be introduced separately in the first three Fords. Those early CVNs could have the new tech installed during the major refurbishment/upgrade periods that take carriers out of service for a year or more every decade.
Before construction began on the USS Ford, it was decided to try and save some money by introducing all this new tech in the first ship. That may still produce cost savings in the long run, but in the short run it exposes the navy and the shipyards that build its ships to more criticism for poor management and shoddy construction and testing practices. That is nothing new, it’s been happening more and more since the 1970s. That is a key problem that has not been fixed and keeps getting worse.
Some of the problems with EMALS were of the sort that could be fixed while the new ship was in service. That included tweaking EMALS operation to generate less stress on aircraft and modifying the design of EMALS and reorganizing how sailors use the system to attain the smaller number of personnel required for catapult operations. But the fatal flaws involved basic reliability. An EMALS catapult was supposed to have a breakdown every 4,100 launches but even after some initial fixes, in heavy use, EMALS failed every 400 launches. By the end of 2017, the Navy concluded that an EMALS equipped carrier had only a seven percent chance of successfully completing a typical four-day surge, which involves maximum aircraft launches for a major combat operation. Ford had only a 70 percent chance of completing a one-day surge operation. That was mainly because when one EMALS catapult went down, all four were inoperable. In effect, the Ford class carriers are much less capable of performing in combat than their predecesso
There were no easy solutions. The most worrisome part of this is the apparent inability of Navy shipbuilding and design experts to come up with a solution for the problem they created. This EMALS catastrophe was avoidable, and the problems should have been detected and taken care of before Ford was on sea trials.
The EMALS disaster calls into question the ability of the navy to handle new, untried, technologies. That is not a new problem and has been around since World War II. In retrospect, not enough was done to test and address what are now obvious problems. The current solution was to delay the moment of truth if possible and then conclude that it was unclear exactly how it happened but that measures would be taken to see that it never happens again. That approach is wearing thin because more people understand it is just a cover for the corruption and mismanagement that has been developing within the industries that build warships. The navy has been having a growing number of similar problems with the design of the LCS, the DDG 1000 and a lot of smaller systems.
Meanwhile, there is a critical need for new carriers. The first ship of the new class of carriers, the Ford, is about the same length of 333 meters and displacement of 100,000 tons as the previous Nimitz class ,but looks different. The most noticeable difference was the island being set closer to the stern, or rear end of the ship. The internal differences are much more obvious, including the power generation and electrical system. The Nimitz ships are rapidly wearing out and, with the EMALS disaster, the Navy had to fix the problems or be forced to improvise and do without for a decade or more.
The Fords were not just replacements for the aging Nimitz class; they were designed to be cheaper to operate. There is a lot more automation and smaller crews. The Ford will be the first modern American warship built without urinals. There are several reasons for this. The Ford will have a smaller, by at least 20 percent, crew and more of them will be women. Currently, about ten percent of American warship crews are women, but the Ford crew will be at least 15 percent female. Since women sleep in all-female berthing areas, a toilet was attached to each berthing area instead of being down the hall. Berthing areas were more spacious because of the smaller crew and held a third to half as many bunks as previous carriers. Finally, drainpipes for urinals more frequently got clogged than those coming from toilets. Eliminating the urinals meant less work for the plumbers. There are a lot of other visible changes to enhance habitability and make long voyages more tolerable.
Before the EMALS crisis, the Ford was expected to cost nearly $14 billion. About 40 percent of that is for designing the first ship of the class, so the actual cost of the first ship (CVN 78) itself will be at least $9 billion and about the same for subsequent ships of the class. Except for the additional cost of fixing unexpected crises like the EMALS and high-speed ammo elevators. Against this, the navy expects to reduce the carrier's lifetime operating expenses by several billion dollars because of greatly reduced crew size. Compared to the current Nimitz class carriers, which cost over $5 billion each, the Fords will feel, well, kind of empty because of the automation and smaller crews. There will also be more computer networking, and robots, reducing the number of people, about 6,000, constantly moving around inside a Nimitz class carrier. The most recent Nimitz class ships have a lot of this automation already but adding EMALS was considered too expensive because of the major engineering changes to the
Meanwhile China has built three steam powered aircraft carriers and is building its first nuclear powered carrier. The latest carrier, the 85,000-ton Fujian is steam powered but has an EMALS catapult system and has been seen launching the J-34 stealth fighter as well as the J-15 and KJ-600 early warning aircraft that can also deliver cargo to the carrier.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 04, 2025 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: B21 Bomber Questions
November 3, 2025: The new American heavy bomber, the B-21 is an 81-ton, twin engine aircraft that can carry nine tons of bombs and missiles. It is 16 meters long with a 40 meter wingspan. B-21s will be based in the United States. Unrefueled range is 4,000 kilometers and with inflight refueling B-21s can reach targets anywhere in the world. Current estimates are that it will cost close to a billion dollars per aircraft. The air force wants at least a hundred B-21s, but if costs escalate Congress will, as it did with the B-1 and B-2, reduce the number of B-21s they will pay for. To make this work, the air force plans to replace the 45 1980s B-1s and 19 1990s B-2 bombers and, eventually, the 75 B-52s that have been flying since the 1950s.
So far, the three test aircraft have all flown successfully and demonstrated that its stealth and advanced electron systems work as claimed. If the air force can keep costs under control and get the B-21 into service by 2027 or no later than 2030. The first production orders were recently issued.
Three years ago the U.S. Air Force believed it had found a replacement for the B-52 bomber; the B-21. At the time there were 76 B-52H aircraft still in service and they are expected to serve into the 2050s because the BUFF/Big, Ugly Fat Fellow just works. The B-21 was described as cheaper and more capable than the similar B-2. As a stealth aircraft it still has the expensive and time-consuming maintenance issues associated with its stealth features. B-21 development began in 2014 and it cost over $200 billion to develop. Current estimates are that the B-21 will cost about $700 billion to develop.
By 2022 one B-21 prototype was built and being prepared for its first flight, which took place in late 2023. Seven more B-21s are under construction and it is expected to enter service in 2027. The air force wants to buy at least a hundred B-21s but that will depend on how well the first B-21s perform. That particularly includes maintenance of its stealth coating purportedly costing much less than the B-2’s. Excessive costs and poor performance are what caused the B-2 to have its production reduced from a hundred to only 21 aircraft. One of these was lost in an accident, leaving only 20 operational. The B-2 entered service in 1997 and production ceased three years later. The aircraft that crashed was valued at $1.4 billion. The 170-ton B-2 has four engines and a crew of two. It can carry up to 23 tons of bombs although the usual bomb load is 18 tons or less. The B-2 usually carries guided bombs or missiles. Max speed is subsonic, about 1,000 kilometers an hour, while cruising speed is 900 kilometers an h0ur,
The B-21 is smaller than the B-2 but has superior stealth capabilities and a similar bombload. The primary justification for the B-21 is that it is hopefully more affordable than the B-2 with much superior defensive and offensive electronics. These are required for the B-21 to operate inside the air defenses of near-peer opponents. The only one of these high-tech foes is China. Russia was, until the current Ukraine War, believed to be another formidable target for American air power. That may still be true on paper but the Ukrainians demonstrated the many flaws of Russian air power.
Chinese capabilities can also be overestimated. Its current newest top-line fighter, the J-20, has visible external rivets while the last US fighter with rivets was the F-14 dropped from service in 2014. So far the Chinese have learned from Russian mistakes and developed better solutions. Despite that, Chinese leaders remind their air force and air defense personnel that better may not be enough against Western technology. That attitude makes the Chinese potentially more formidable than foreign nations believe.
The U.S. Air Force has maintained air dominance since World War II with superior tech and more capable personnel. That has been useful when efforts to develop new tech aircraft or weapons fail because of development problems or cost-overruns. Often it is a combination of both and Congress pulls the plug. It’s been that way since World War II and the air force has always had an older, proven system to substitute for the failed technology. When it comes to bombers, the B-52 has been the successful substitute for over half a century. This is a reality that is understood in the air force but not publicized. What the air force does give some publicity to is new tech regularly being added to B-52s. This keeps these ancient bombers effective and relevant, especially a substitute for newer but less effective bomber designs. Sometimes these announcements simply confirm the obvious.
FYEO

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 02:42 am: Edit

NOT a Poltiical question or "just increase the Military Budget" question.

Where can the US Military Budget be cut to allow the new carriers on time (or new schedule now in effect)?

UK solution was less than ideal (3 Carriers became 2 Carriers, which became 1 and a 'training carrier' (before they decided to make it a full carrier again) and 'the planes will follow 2 years after the carrier is finished').

So what gives?

Can the Escort Service Life be extended so fewer new Escorts need to be built?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 06:41 am: Edit

We already cut a bunch of junk programs. There are some bases, activities, and contracts in the districts of powerful congress critters that need to go but for political reasons cannot.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 06:47 am: Edit

Charles III vs Starmer: civil war?
PM Starmer told the royal family they need to cancel all public appearances for ninety days for security reasons. King Charles III quickly told Starmer who is King and who isn’t. Charles III and the family immediately scheduled MORE public appearances. Then memos leaked that Starmer wants to get rid of the royal family entirely, sparking public outrage and calls for Starmer to resign, including from a majority of his own party. Reports indicate that the Royal Guillotine is being brought out of storage and sharpened.