What is your definition of a corrupt politician, SVC? Don't use fake news.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 04:34 pm: Edit

One who takes bribes, one who sends government/taxpayer money to people/groups who don't use it for the legislated purpose but pocket it and pay the politician a bribe to get more contracts in future, one who rigs elections so that his party remains in power not to do good but to collect more bribes.

I never use fake news and do not appreciate the accusation that I ever have.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Too little, too late?

"Trump says UK soldiers in Afghanistan 'among greatest of all warriors'.

I doubt this will placate UK Veterans or UK politicians.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Sorry Steve, I was offline last night.

I agree with P. Howard, M. Grafton, and you that Pres. Trump's comments were decidedly problematic.

I also agree with you that there was frankly nothing the U.S. - or anyone else - could do in Afghanistan that was going to provide a long-term solution. As you noted, that's largely because it's not a nation; it's a collection of tribes that were "unified" in various acts of colonial fiat rather than by anything resembling self-determination. There hasn't been true stability there in several hundred years, and there isn't likely to be for several hundred more.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Too little, too late?

Well, Monty didn't get fired when he made the same apology in Jan 45. Churchill had to make a bigger apology for Monty in parliament.

I doubt if Trump's inaccurate statement is going to wreck NATO. NATO survived Biden being clearly incompetent, it should survive Trump being merely stupid.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Jessica, I must protest, your time scale for Afghanistan was off by a factor of ten. Thousands of years, before or after. Afghanistan will never be a country. "There is no such thing as an Afghan" unless you're talking about a dog or a rug.

I grew up in an age when every science fiction book assumed we were headed for a "united Earth" but all I see is countries getting smaller and smaller. Scotland wants to leave England, Catalonia wants to leave Spain, South Sudan did leave Sudan, Czechoslovakia is no more. Yugoslavia split up. The USSR split into 16 countries and the biggest of those (Russia) only barely controls Siberia. Tibet wants out of China, so do the Weegurs (I forgot the real spelling). Quebec wants out of Canada, and while some people in some parts of Canada want to join the US it's hardly the whole country even considering the idea. Northern and Southern Mexico do not want to be in the same country. Long Island doesn't want to be part of New York. Belgium is a joke created by forcing a French province and a Dutch province to pretend they are a country. Iraq is three countries that don't even like each other shoved into a grab bag of leftover land others didn't want. Can you say Palestine? There are a bunch of parts of India that want to go their own way. The Kurds want their own country; they don't want to see Turkey join with other countries. The Baluchis feel the same way. Millions of Texans want out of the US, and Oklahoma includes a "join Texas when they leave" movement. There are parts of Japan that the Japanese government doesn't even pretend to rule over. The Texas government doesn't actually remember that the Texas panhandle is part of the state and we like it that way. Greenland wants independence (with a subsidy from someone for ... reasons). Provencal wanted out of France until the French forced them to speak French; so did Brittany. France gave up trying to force Alsace to speak French. I cannot think of any two significant nations that want to merge while I can obviously think of a dozen that want to split up.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 24, 2026 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Steve, it was fairly stable under the Timurid Empire from the 14th to early 16th century. As for the future, it's possible that increased lethality of weaponry will contribute to sufficient depopulation as to impose a very different kind of stability.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 02:00 am: Edit

Svc, the last few years i traveled in Europe by car. No border checks, same Currency almost in every nation, full speed on good roads. Hm, it's a new thing, called a Union something. Right! Got it. The EUROPEAN union. There is a queue to become member BTW. (I wonder were it will stop)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 04:51 am: Edit

The EU is a trade union with a parliament and currency, not a nation.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 05:11 am: Edit

Is it fair to say, Humans like the benefits of opposites (or being a Big Fish in a Small Pond or Small Fish in a Big Pond)?

We like Independenance and being part of a unique area (Quebec for example).

We like the personal freedoms a large Union does - going from Portugal to Estonia (or California to say Rhode Island?) with with effect zero border controls.

We like the economic and safey laws benefits of being in a large Union - generally simiar laws so you can sell your goods witin the entire union (noting the US does have regional taxes - but a toy sellable in New York can be sellable in Ohio??)


We like the militaty benefits of being in a large Unnion (although, this is perhaps questionable at the moment).

We don't like being told 'how we can live our lives' -possibly by unelected officials (certainly an issue with the EU), but otherwise by Governments which are trying to protect people (the new Australian Law Banning under 16's from Social Medial for example).

The UK left the EU because the UK majority felt smaller outweighed the benefits of being bigger.

Several nations voted to join the EU as they felt the benefits of being something bigger outweighted the benefits of being smaller.

As SVC said - and Greenland is a good example... we like the idea of being semi-autonomous - and we just need someone else to pay for us to be that.

The UK liked the idea of a single Economic Union - but did not necessary like the idea of a single Political/Legal/Military Union.

(Fair to say, the EEA/EEC my parents voted to join, was not the same as EU we got to vote on to leave - so things can change, for both the good and the bad).

Perhaps it is a combination of several factors.

The Young like change, the ability to travel freel,y but prefer personal freedoms.

The Old like economic benefits and safety - but don't like change.

Perhaps what the World needs is 50% in a Single Untion and 50% in 100 individual nations - and we chose which half we live in?

(Please delete any areas which you feel break the political rule).

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 11:23 am: Edit

Well, you said "any two significant nations that want to merge". Merger is basically what you get by conquest, like what may happen to Ukraine. These days Unions is the accepted way. But you must have an example you are thinking of.

"while I can obviously think of a dozen that want to split up." Yeah, but cheer up! The independent movements thrives mainly on oppression (or be crushed by it) and by bad politics by the government. What gives the Scottish SNP such a boost was the Brexit. "It's the economy, stupid!"
Still, they have hesitated to try independence.
IOW, you can hear grumblings but few actual break ups. I can't recall any ongoing anyway.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 11:51 am: Edit

One ray of light for the EU appears to be the reluctant recognition that the high levels of regulation and centralized decision making are an inefficient way to govern. If they follow through with discussed reforms, the member nations may be able to get some of their innovation and economic growth back. And they'll need it to fund their aspirations of full military independence. It'll be a long, hard road.

--Mike

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Mike, maybe, but reforms are more needed in some member states than others. On the whole the EU regulations are not onerous. As a person you don't notice them. I figure they are much about setting standards for trade.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 12:23 pm: Edit

A quick Google inquiry resulted in this:

Quote:” Yes, there are many regulations and laws in the European Union that are widely considered unpopular, burdensome, or onerous, with an estimated €150 billion in annual administrative costs. Over 60% of businesses view this extensive, sometimes overlapping, red tape as a major obstacle to investment and innovation.
Key examples of burdensome or criticized EU regulations include:
Environmental and Sustainability Reporting: While aiming for green goals, rules like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) create heavy compliance costs, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
"Novel Foods" Licensing: The regulatory regime for, and approval process of, new food technologies is described as incredibly slow and restrictive, with many applications pending or terminated.
Digital and Data Privacy Rules (GDPR): While popular for protecting consumers, compliance is often deemed burdensome, complex, and costly for businesses.
Financial and Banking Regulation: The rapid increase in, and complexity of, regulations like the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) impose significant administrative burdens on the financial sector.
Agriculture Regulations: Stringent environmental rules and, at times, inconsistent policies have led to significant discontent among farmers.
Key Aspects of the Burden:
SME Impact: Small and medium-sized enterprises often feel the weight of compliance more heavily than larger corporations, with 55% of SMEs calling regulatory obstacles their biggest challenge.
Cumulative Effect: The sheer volume of new laws (5,500+ pages of new legal texts between 2017 and 2022) is seen as overwhelming.
Cross-Border Inconsistencies: Despite the single market, persistent, non-harmonized, and sometimes contradictory national interpretations create extra hurdles.
Competitiveness Concerns: Recent reports suggest these regulations make EU businesses less competitive compared to the US and China, with some regulations hindering growth and innovation.
These regulations, aimed at creating high standards for safety, sustainability, and privacy, are frequently criticized for being disproportionate to their benefits, leading to calls for regulatory relief. ”

AI answer, there may be errors. Judge accordingly.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Yeah, business always object to new laws. It is hard to know when they got a valid point.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 25, 2026 - 04:50 pm: Edit

>> On the whole the EU regulations are not onerous
>> As a person you don't notice them

Having lived and worked in Europe, I'd tend to agree that the regulated lifestyle is not particularly noticeable. On a day to day level I found it overall quite pleasant (although very expensive since the introduction of the Euro).

I think I'm referencing at the EU leadership level there have been speeches referencing the lack of European competitiveness, the lack of innovation in Europe translating into major new businesses, lower long term economic growth, higher systemic unemployment (particularly for the young) and the small number overall of major global businesses that have originated in Europe. And then all those things tie into either a slowing down or perhaps even reforming of the regulatory state.

But, of course, different politicians say different things and opinions vary.

--Mike

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, January 26, 2026 - 08:36 am: Edit

Mike, opinions vary indeed

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 27, 2026 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Leadership: Why So Many African Coups
January 27, 2026: Currently two dozen African countries are experiencing some form of terrorism, ethnic conflicts or civil war. Seven of these nations had undergone a coup, with the military taking control from the elected government. There are many reasons why these coups take place in Africa, where tribal loyalties are often a factor. Political or armed conflicts between tribes sometimes lead to coups, especially when the soldiers cannot suppress the tribal violence. Another common cause of coups is economic problems that cause high unemployment and high rates of poverty. This is often the result of weak governments that are unable to provide personal or economic security. Issues over sharing are another common cause.
For decades African nations were heavily influenced by foreign corporations or governments that interfered with how the local government operated. There are many corrupt elected governments in Africa and the local military leaders often try to deal with the corruption by taking over the government, purportedly trying to reduce the corruption and then allow democracy to return. That rarely works as the corruption is often extensive, persistent, resistant to reform and that includes the occasional military coup. Experience has shown that a military coup is rarely effective at fixing anything and usually makes matters worse because most African nations oppose military governments and refuse to support or cooperate with them when they occur in a nearby country. There is a similar response by foreign aid donors, who halt aid until democracy is restored.
Foreign aid is crucial in Africa because corruption limits the amount of money governments can spend on essential infrastructure, health or food aid programs. That means, when a coup takes place, the new military government finds itself isolated, criticized and denied most forms of foreign aid or cooperation. In Niger that meant the air space over Niger was closed and surrounding nations closed their borders with Niger. The coup leaders were isolated, criticized and left with few options other than abandoning their effort to make their version of local government work. Some military governments last for years by creating a plausible, to most of the locals, external threat. Their neighbors and foreign aid donors usually quickly denounce this fiction.
During the Cold War unelected governments could keep the aid coming by playing off the Western and communist donors against each other. After the Cold War ended in 1991, the only donors left were Western democracies. Dictatorships tend to be much less affluent and unable to provide much aid to anyone. Such an environment is common throughout Africa, especially where there are valuable raw materials that generate even more corruption. For example, Niger does not have any valuable natural resources and must import more than it exports. This imbalance is made possible by lots of foreign aid. When there is a coup, the food, medical and similar aid generally continues unless the new government tries to steal the aid.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 27, 2026 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Forces: European Fighters And Pacifists
January 27, 2026: Europeans have become more uneasy the longer the Ukraine War goes on. At this point it has lasted longer than the 1941-45 war between Germany and the Soviet Union. The 30 European NATO members became concerned about Russia attacking NATO. In reality, this is absurd. The 30 European NATO nations have a combined population of over 800 million and more than half the global GDP. Their combined forces have 3.5 million troops. Add Ukraine’s 800,000 and you have a force more than four times what Russia can muster. Russia has a population of 140 million and a GDP of $7.7 trillion, which is 3.6 percent of Global GDP. European NATO nations have a combined GDP fifteen times that of Russia. Not surprisingly, the NATO nations closest to Russia spend more on defense and have larger military forces than nations more distant from Russia, like Spain, Italy, France and Britain.
Since 1949, NATO has been preparing to defend Western Europe from a Russian attack. Until 1989, Russia had massed several hundred thousand troops in East Germany, along with several thousand tanks, most of them T-72s. Thousands more tanks were stationed in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. In 1989, when the wall dividing Russian-controlled East Berlin from NATO-controlled West Berlin came down, the situation changed in a radical and unexpected way.
Back then, Russia was called the Soviet Union because it had more territory and twice as many people as the current Russian Federation. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed into 14 independent nations. The two largest were the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The current Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, always wanted to rebuild the Soviet Union and began doing so in 2014 by seizing several Ukrainian provinces. He then invaded Ukraine in early 2022. Ukraine was seeking to join NATO, and its application was being processed. To become a NATO member, Ukraine had to acquire Western tanks and warplanes because NATO requires all members to use similar weapons, not Russian ones. The Ukrainians were in the process of converting when Russia attacked, as Russia wanted Ukraine to be part of a new Russian Empire, not the NATO alliance that defends members from Russian aggression.
The Russian attack did not go well, with their initial force losing most of its tanks and more than half a million soldiers dead, wounded, missing, or taken prisoner. This was a startling revelation to NATO and a major disappointment to Russia. NATO had amassed substantial forces to defeat a Russian attack, and that attack eventually came in early 2022 against NATO applicant Ukraine. This clarified the long-unanswered question of what would have happened if Russia had attacked NATO forces during the 1949–1991 Cold War. The Russian attack against Ukraine was not as massive as the one the Soviet Union’s forces in Eastern Europe were prepared to launch against NATO forces in West Germany and beyond.
The Ukrainians halted the Russian attack and inflicted heavy casualties on the Russians while doing so. After a year of fighting, the Russians had lost most of their modern tanks, along with nearly half a million troops killed, wounded, or missing. A growing number of Russian soldiers preferred desertion or surrendering to Ukrainian forces over dying in Ukraine. Over a million military-age Russian men left the country, legally or otherwise, to escape military service and the possibility of death or disabling wounds in Ukraine.
This made it clear that a war between NATO and Russia would be one-sided, even without the Americans. European NATO nations can raise far more troops and equip them with more tanks, warplanes, and warships than Russia can muster. Since 2022, NATO nations have been preparing for an eventual Russian attack. For nearly four years, invading Russian forces have been fighting in Ukraine. One reason Russia gave for invading was Ukraine’s effort to join NATO and gain the protection of the NATO alliance, which includes the United States, in addition to well-armed nearby states like Poland, Germany, and France. Russia did not want to fight the NATO alliance.
While NATO could not justify sending troops to Ukraine, it could and did send nearly $400 billion worth of weapons and economic aid. Initially the Americans were the largest contributor, but as the war continued, European contributions increased while U.S. shipments declined. NATO continues to support Ukraine because that is what NATO was established to do in 1949. The threat then was the aggressive Soviet Union, which never attacked.
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the largest and most aggressive successor state was the Russian Federation, led by men who wanted to rebuild the Soviet empire and decided in 2021 to start with Ukraine. The Russian invasion reminded other NATO states that the Russian threat still existed and was very real. At the same time, Russia is aware that NATO countries can muster more military forces than Russia and possess far larger economic resources.
NATO nations are planning to increase the number of soldiers in their peacetime forces, which means a return to conscription. Without the war in Ukraine, European voters would not have approved the return of conscription as a necessary step to increase the size of their armed forces. NATO nations have large enough populations of military-age men to do this, in addition to enormous economic resources.
NATO members, including the United States, accounted for nearly half of the $2.4 trillion in global defense spending in 2022. NATO spending continued increasing faster than global spending because of the war in Ukraine. For example, Denmark announced that it would gradually increase defense spending over the next ten years until it reaches about $21 billion. At that point, defense spending would be three times what it was in 2022 and would meet the NATO-suggested two percent of GDP. Denmark had long spent much less, safe in the knowledge that the United States and larger NATO members met or exceeded the spending goal applicable to all NATO members.
This annoyed the United States, but America has the largest economy in the world and military commitments worldwide. The U.S. has long had the largest defense budget in the world. During the 1948–1991 Cold War, European NATO members believed their job was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.
By 2025, the Americans had proof that the Europeans could defend themselves from Russian aggression if they had to. The U.S. was increasingly committed to dealing with China, which meant its largest military commitment was in the Pacific theater. The Europeans were on their own but could still get some support from the United States, like specialized military services and a source for new weapons designs.
The Europeans accepted this new reality and are increasing their defense spending and expanding their active-duty and reserve military forces. Outwardly, Russia proclaims superiority over European forces. However, privately, Russian military planners and intelligence experts see a realistic opportunity for European nations to create armed forces capable of dealing with any Russian aggression.
America has the largest economy in the world and military commitments worldwide. The U.S. has long had the largest defense budget in the world. During the 1948–1991 Cold War, European NATO members believed their job was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.
By 2025, the Americans had proof that the Europeans could defend themselves from Russian aggression if they had to. The U.S. was increasingly committed to dealing with China, which meant its largest military commitment was in the Pacific theater. The Europeans were on their own but could still get some support from the United States, like specialized military services and a source for new weapons designs.
The Europeans accepted this new reality and are increasing their defense spending and expanding their active-duty and reserve military forces. Outwardly, Russia proclaims superiority over European forces. However, privately, Russian military planners and intelligence experts see a realistic opportunity for European nations to create armed forces capable of dealing with any Russian aggression.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Surface Forces : Constellation Died for Our Sins
January 28, 2026: At the end of 2025 the U.S. Navy/USN cancelled its Constellation-class guided missile frigate program after five years and billions of dollars spent. With not even one frigate completed. The current U.S. government was trying to break this cycle of failure in American shipbuilding, but the results will not be visible for several years, or longer.
The Constellation equipment failures were preceded by several others. At the end of 2022 the first of the new American Ford class CVN/Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier finally left for its long delayed operational stress test cruise. This meant two months at sea, operating as a fully functional aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, this cruise revealed more equipment flaws, the main ones being continued problems with EMALS catapults and arrestor gear. That was not expected as the recent repairs to EMALS and the arrestor gear as well as the 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 blats 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. Substandard components have long been a problem in shipbuilding, especially when it comes to warships. These require a lot of exotic components not found on commercial vessels. Suppliers will often deliver substandard parts, either because of incompetence or attempts at fraud. This was another item on the long list of failures by the navy shipbuilding bureaucracy. The Ford-class ships are not exceptional when it comes to these problems, just the most expensive ship plagued by these problems.
There seemed to be no end of problems that delayed this operational stress test cruise, which was meant to demonstrate that the Ford, the first of a new class of carriers, was 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. The 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 the radars and engines, but these proved easier to fix than the flight deck equipment. The JBDs were not new tech, and failures were the result of substandard parts. There may be other substandard components in the Ford that will not perform reliably for as long as expected.
A ship, especially a warship that had a lot of problems, was often referred to as a cursed ship. The USS Ford, the first of the class, had become a major disaster rather than a more effective new ship design. The number and severity of problems are 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 believes it had these problems solved and had carried out 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 worked 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 are 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 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 the 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 early 2020 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 was the fact that if one EMALS catapult developed problems, all four EMALS catapults were out of service until the malfunctioning one was 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 now only puts two catapults out of service until the problem was found and fixed. The two-month cruise was a final test to see if the EMALS was reliable enough for heavy use.
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 nuclear propulsion system problems were the kind that only get discovered once the ship was at sea for an extended period. To a certain extent that was 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 was now considered reliable. There are still questions about how well EMALS will perform once the Ford was 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 was 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 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.
It wasn’t until February 2018 that the navy confirmed that it was having major problems with the design and construction of its new EMALS catapults, then installed only in the newly completed USS Ford CVN 78 and eventually the three other Ford-class carriers under construction. During the first sea trials, the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations, and found EMALS less reliable than the older steam catapult. EMALS was also more labor-intense to operate and put more stress on launched aircraft than expected. Worse, due to a basic design flaw, if one EMALS catapult became inoperable, the other three catapults could not be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults. This meant that the older practice of taking one or more steam catapults offline for maintenance or repairs while at sea was not practical with the EMALs design. The navy admitted that in combat if one or more catapults were rendered unusable, they remained that way until it was possible to shut down all four catapults for repairs.
The landing and recovery system also failed far more frequently than with steam catapults. In effect, these problems with launching and recovering aircraft made the Fords much less effective than the older CVNs. The navy had long had a growing problem with developing new ships and technology and the Ford was the worst example to date.
There were no easy solutions. The most worrisome part of this was 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 the Ford was on sea trials.
The EMALS disaster calls into question the ability of the navy to handle new, untried, technologies. That was not a new problem and had 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 was wearing thin because more people understood it was just a cover for the corruption and mismanagement that had been developing within the industries that build warships. The navy had 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 was a critical need for new carriers. The first ship of the new class of carriers, the Ford is about the same length, 333 meters and displacement 100,000 tons, as the previous Nimitz class, but looks different. The most noticeable difference was the island set closer to the stern rear of the ship. The internal differences are less obvious, including the power generation and electrical system. The Nimitz ships are rapidly wearing out and with the EMALS disaster, the Navy must fix the problems or be forced to improvise and do without an effective carrier force 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 was a lot more automation and smaller crews. The Ford was 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 dormitory berthing areas, a toilet head will now be attached to each berthing area instead of being down the hall. Moreover, berthing areas will be more spacious because of the smaller crew and hold a third to half as many bunks as previous carriers. Finally, drainpipes for urinals more frequently get clogged than those coming from toilets. Eliminating the urinals means 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 was 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 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 power plant and electrical systems.
In 2016 the USN had another shipbuilding disaster on its hands. The innovative LCS Littoral Combat Ship didn’t work. The navy admitted that it was more than just teething problems and largely due to over a decade of bad management. In the previous year 62 percent of the LCS ships had major equipment failures. The 2015 decision to reclassify the LCS as a frigate increased the per-ship cost to over a billion dollars each. The original LCS design was supposed to be a low $220 million per ship but that escalated to $480 million. The innovative use of a much smaller crew in a highly automated ship never worked, nor did the use of mission modules. The problem was the same one the navy had had with so many warships since the 1980s, poor management in design and construction. The LCS, conceived in the late 1990s as a solution to warships that were too expensive to build, became another example of what the LCS was supposed to fix.
The U.S. Navy had been increasingly unhappy with the performance of American ship builders, and the LCS problems are just another reminder. Costs are rising sharply, quality is down and the admirals can’t get satisfactory answers from the builders. For example, the new class of destroyers, the DDG-1000 class destroyers also faced ballooning costs, up to as much as $3 billion per ship, as opposed to planned costs of $800 million. The current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers only cost $1 billion each.
A large part of the problem was the tendency to dismiss the lessons of the past as irrelevant. For example, since the 1960s the navy had insisted on making more and more changes to the ship design as they are built. This drives up costs. During World War II the shipyards were given a design and then left alone until they delivered the ship. At that point the navy issued another contract for all the changes it wanted. Warships undergo numerous minor and sometimes major changes during their 20-30 year service life. But it’s most expensive to do it while you are building the ship. That raises another problem, the decades-old contractor practice of deliberately making an unreasonably low estimate of cost when proposing a design. The navy goes along with this, in the interest of getting Congress to approve the money. Since Congress had a short memory, the navy does not take much heat for this never ending low ball planning process. Actually, it’s poor planning in general that causes most of the high costs. It’s bad planning by the navy, when coming up with the initial design, and bad planning on the part of the few shipyards that have a monopoly on building warships. Monopolies do not encourage efficiency. The LCS was just the latest example of all these bad habits at work. Don’t expect any of this to change anytime soon. It’s the way things have worked in the navy for a long time. Many admirals, members of Congress, and even a few shipbuilding executives, have called for reform. But it just doesn’t happen.
The LCS was meant to avoid the expense of building an improved frigate as a replacement for the 71 Perry class frigates. This change had been obvious since early 2015 when the navy decided to officially call LCS vessels frigates. By mid-2016 the navy decided to go one step further and drop the use of modules in the LCS. Instead the navy would equip existing and future LCS ships like the MMSC Multi-Mission Surface Combatant version of LCS Saudi Arabia had requested in late 2015.
The LCS was meant to be much more than a frigate and used a very innovative design. In the end there was plenty of innovation but nothing that was useful or reliable. The U.S. Navy 's effort to abandon the frigate and reinvent it with the quite different and very innovative LCS design was risky, and it largely failed to achieve its objectives. What many sailors really wanted was a replacement for the 4,100 ton Perry frigates, which were very popular with their users. Construction of Perrys lasted from 1975 to 2004 and that included a lot of upgrades and modifications. These ships had a top speed of 55 kilometers an hour and a crew of 176. There were anti-aircraft and anti-submarine sensors and weapons, plus a 76mm cannon, a Phalanx anti-missile 20mm autocannon and two helicopters that could be armed with anti-submarine torpedoes or anti-ship missiles. Six foreign nations used the Perry and some substituted local weapons for American ones.
The LCS began development in 2002 and in 2012 the U.S. Navy put it into mass production. Then in 2013 one of the three LCSs in service got its first tour in a combat zone, counter-piracy duty around the Straits of Malacca. There LCSs will take turns serving six month tours of counter-piracy duty and be based in Singapore. There were lots of problems with design, reliability and crew effectiveness. At the same time costs were going up. By early 2014 the navy decided to cut the number to be built from 52 to 32. Mostly this was about shrinking budgets, but there’s also the fact that the LCS had been, for many admirals and politicians, much more troublesome than expected. This was to be expected because the LCS was a radical new warship design and these always have a lot of problems at first. For the LCS the problems never stopped. Some were fixed, others resisted solution at all and others were fixed, then broke again.
The navy originally sought to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million after the first five each. The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million, about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. The navy believes it had the cost down to under $500 million each as mass production begins. That did not happen. At this point cancellation of the program was becoming an attractive option. That would be easier to do than fix the fundamental problems with the management of designing and building warships. That would involve substantial changes in the American shipbuilding industry, the way Congress handles the military budget and leadership methods within the navy.


FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Can Chinese Forces Fight?
January 28, 2026: When Chinese leader Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012, he was determined to turn the Chinese armed forces into an organization that could fight and win. His first obstacle was corrupt officers. Many Communist commanders and staff officers saw military service as a way to get rich. Xi is still finding and prosecuting corrupt officers, including generals and admirals. While trying to get rich, these officers were not doing much to ensure that their troops were trained to fight and win a war. China has spent over a trillion dollars on the military since 2012, and at least ten percent of that was lost to corruption.
Despite the corruption, the Chinese military has made many efforts to create capable combat forces. For example, China sees no point in Russia continuing to fight the Ukrainians, who have superior troops, weapons and leadership. In Taiwan, the reaction to Ukraine increased popular support for resisting a Chinese invasion as stubbornly as the Ukrainians did in their homeland. China is not just worried about Taiwanese resistance but also about the capabilities of Chinese forces.
China has spent several hundred billion dollars over the last decade to upgrade its military to the point that it was superior to Russia’s. While studying China’ military modernization, the U.S. intelligence community came to believe that actual Chinese annual defense spending was about $700 billion. Current U.S. spending is $950 billion. The Chinese spent a lot on organizational efforts, special training and new equipment.
Over the last decade the Chinese army has been converting its divisions to brigades, many of them independent brigades. There are three types of combat brigades. The most potent is the heavy brigade, each with about a hundred tanks and dozens of tracked IFVs/Infantry Fighting Vehicles plus detachments of engineers and other specialists.
Then there are the medium brigades that are mainly infantry in wheeled IFVs. These are similar to American Stryker brigades. The heavy and medium brigades often have up to 5,000 troops, including all the smaller specialist detachments that make these brigades the equivalent of a small division.
Finally, there are dozens of light infantry brigades. Many of these are simply infantry who are transported by truck but the light brigades include some mountain brigades and several air assault, via helicopter, brigades. The Chinese Air force has seven airborne infantry brigades with 4,000 troops each and the navy has three marine brigades with 6,000 troops each.
There are also about 12,000 special operations commando troops, most of them in the army. Each of the 13 Group Armies has a special forces brigade and these brigades have fewer than a thousand troops. The paramilitary police have about a thousand of these commandos while the air force has a smaller number.
The major problem with the army is that all the elite special operations and airborne units as well as key units stationed in the capital and a few other places have few conscripts. Nearly all the conscripts are assigned to the combat brigades and the support brigades assigned to each of the 13 Group Armies. Units with conscripts spend about half the year training the new ones and, if there is a war these units would half the time, have a large portion of their troops poorly trained and not fully integrated into the unit. This is a major problem for combat units that depend on well-trained troops who have been with their units long enough for commanders to know what they can get out of them. China’s use of conscripts makes its non-elite units and service/supply troops very uncertain in capability in a real war.
The Chinese army currently has about 975,000 troops and about 15 percent are conscripts. This is a problem because the conscripts only serve for two years and then most leave. The army encourages conscript soldiers who performed well during their two years to become career soldiers. If accepted the soldier accepts a multi-year service contract and is soon promoted to corporal and some are offered a chance to be an officer and attend officer candidate school. Soldiers who perform well are allowed to keep reenlisting until they are 55, at which point they retire on a pension and get preferential consideration for government jobs. The percentage who are accepted as career professionals and offered officer candidate school varies from year-to-year depending on need and the quality of the conscripts finishing their service.
There are seven NCO ranks, from corporal to Master Sergeant 1st class which is the Chinese equivalent of Sergeant Major. Many of these career soldiers don’t stay in long enough to retire, and some are not allowed to reenlist. NCOs are relatively new for China because, until the 1980s, China followed the Russian practice of having officers handle many jobs NCOs take care of in Western forces. China has greatly increased the pay and responsibilities of NCOs in the past two decades. Now some more experienced or highly trained NCOs do technical and staff jobs that were previously performed by officers. To become an NCO, you must have a high school education, which not all Chinese teenagers are able to obtain.
While China wants an army that can perform as well as Western forces, they won’t get it until they convert to an all-volunteer force and upgrade initial combat training to Western standards. China is switching to Western training methods but is not yet willing to spend what it takes to pay all the troops what they are worth. Currently the two-year conscripts are paid $150-300 a month. The lowest ranking NCO makes more than twice that and the top NCO Sergeant Majors make ten times what a conscript makes. For an all-volunteer force, pay for everyone would have to go up to maintain differences between rank. That would begin at the very bottom, where new recruits would make two or three times what they get now. Living conditions, housing and food have been improving rapidly during the last decade, but career troops need to make enough to support a family. The need to dramatically increase pay for an all-volunteer and higher quality army is a significant reason for China’s retention of conscription.
While Chinese troops have not seen combat since 1979, they have engaged in some stressful relief operations. In the wake of the relief efforts for the 2008 earthquakes, army doctors found themselves faced with thousands of soldiers exhibiting strange symptoms. These include severe fatigue, shortness of breath, palpitations, headaches, excessive sweating, dizziness, disturbed sleep, fainting and flashbacks to traumatic situations encountered during the weeks of working in the earthquake zone where nearly 100,000 people died. A few of the army doctors recognized the symptoms as PTSD/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's been three decades since Chinese soldiers experienced combat, and there are only stories left of its after-effects. Some of the oldest NCOs and officers vaguely remember, when they first entered military service, hearing about veterans of the 1979 battles on the Vietnamese border, suffering from combat fatigue.
PTSD is not unusual for relief workers at the site of particularly horrendous disasters. The earthquakes in central China were the kind of disaster that only occurs every generation or two. This was the first one in which so many troops were mobilized, so quickly, to help out. Thus many of these soldiers saw the aftereffects when they were still fresh, and at their most horrific. Chinese doctors studied the growing body of medical knowledge and research on PTSD, particularly work done in the U.S. to treat the many soldiers exposed to the stress of working in wartime Iraq. Chinese military doctors estimate that up to 20 percent of the soldiers who performed relief duty in the earthquake zone now have PTSD. Many civilian workers are similarly affected and also need treatment.
Xi Jinping proclaims his military is ready for combat. Chinese military publications feature many articles that cast doubt on the combat readiness of Chinese forces.

FYEO

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Sunday, February 01, 2026 - 05:26 am: Edit

"Epstein files claims its first politician
Slovak National Security Advisor Miroslav Lajčák resigned after Epstein files revealed a Russian government connection and requests for girls."
Source - Malcontent news, BBC, The Politico

I say "What?". Why would Epstein be a pimp for a Slovakian politician?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, February 01, 2026 - 06:05 am: Edit

Please delete this if it crosses one of several lines....

Histrocially some men (and some women - but a very small number... ) when they get into power, just "can't keep it in their pants".

Therefore once it is know someone can "get you what you wan't" - they become the go to point?

Sex and Power.... or Power and Sex - and where there is either, blackmail/spying then can come into it? Was Epstein a Secret Spy Master - and collected names and details to pass on to their masters??

It might explain why so many people in power in several nations was 'welcomed in' by him?

I don't know how many guilty people are in the Epstein files (and one would hope most are innocent.

Equally, there might be just alot of evil people in this world and Epstein was one of the evilists?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, February 01, 2026 - 09:51 am: Edit

Helps explain why so much was ignored, or actively covered up.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, February 01, 2026 - 09:55 am: Edit

Rumor has it that Epstein was connected to intelligence agencies, and his island was used to gather information from and about influential people from all over the world.

--Mike