It is being reported that two U.S.N. destroyers went though the strait.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2026 - 02:30 pm: Edit

I bet they were not alone…

At a guess, the nearest carrier provided nonstop air cover, a nuclear sub (or two) were in flanking positions, chances are there were two airborne warning air control aircraft close by, but not actually over the Straits.

Not sure what Air force aircraft would be assigned, think may be a A-10 Squadron, two F-16 squadrons and heaven only knows how man F-15 squadrons.

Probably a pair of B-52 loaded up to the gunnels with drones on standby.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2026 - 03:37 pm: Edit

President Trump has made several statements critical of NATO countries that have refused the use of bases or Air space transit permission associated with ongoing operations in The Persian Gulf and Iran, and directed at France and Spain.

One point specifically mentioned was the potential closing of joint operated bases in Spain, the naval base in Rota and the air base in Seville.

According to Wikipedia, there are about 3,700 military uniformed officers and enlisted deployed at the two bases. (3,235 navy, 400 air force, and less than 100 from the USMC, U.S. Army, Space Force and U.S.C.G.)

Presumably, at the same time the President orders the troops to leave, he will immediately declare a 200% tariff on trade with Spain.

This could get interesting…

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 11, 2026 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Fox news is now reporting the two u.s. navy destroyers will be leading the mine clearance operations of the Strait of Hormuz.

No listing of other forces assigned, but it is safe to assume that there will be various ships boats and helicopters there to facilitate the clearing of mines.

Interesting that the public announcement happened just as the parties start the meetings in pakistan.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, April 11, 2026 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Oh I can see a 2 billion dollar ship that might never be the same again. But then since the navy decided to decommission the Avenger class minesweepers and turned it over to the littoral combat ships, or is this just another failure for the class. Gee dont piss of Spain they might mine the Strait of Gibraltar.(Smile)

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 12:37 am: Edit

I didn't read in any of the reports that indicated exactly where the 2x Burkes traversed? Did they use the passage closer to Iran which the toll paying freighters and tankers have used? Or did they go through the regular shipping channel that was supposedly loaded with somewhere between 6 and 5000 mines?

If they went through the normal shipping channel, USN had to have at least some confidence that it wasnt mined? Or that whatever mines that had been planted were somehow accurately mapped so they could be safely avoided? Or perhaps that it was known that the smart mines were programmed to only detonate once a larger ship was detected somehow?

$5B worth of Burkes is one expensive way to test a channel, unless u know its already clear?

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 07:14 am: Edit

According to Google AI:

Quote:” As of April 12, 2026, the U.S. Navy has deployed two guided-missile destroyers to lead the initial phase of mine-clearing operations in the Strait of Hormuz. This mission, announced by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on April 11, follows reports of naval mines laid by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The New York Times
The New York Times
+3
Key Ships Involved
The primary vessels currently operating to "set conditions" for the clearance of these mines are:
USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG-121): An Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer and part of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group.
USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112): An independently-deployed guided-missile destroyer.
USNI News
USNI News
+1
How They Are Clearing Mines
While the destroyers provide security and establish a "new passage," the actual detection and removal of explosives are increasingly handled by high-tech equipment rather than the ships themselves:
Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs): The Navy is using robotic drones like the Mk 18 and Mod 2 Kingfish. These torpedo-shaped machines use advanced sonar to map the seabed and identify hidden mines.
Helicopters and Support Craft: Specialized aircraft and additional underwater drones are expected to join the effort in the coming days to expand the safe shipping route.
CBS News
CBS News
+4
Context of the Operation
Purpose: The goal is to establish a verified safe pathway for merchant tankers after a period of conflict and a shaky ceasefire.
Iranian Denial: The Iranian government has denied that U.S. ships have entered the strait, claiming it maintains full control over the waterway's passage.
Strategic Impact: Approximately one-fifth of the world's crude oil passes through this strait, making its closure or contamination by mines a major global economic threat.”

As always, AI may not be totally correct.

Y.M.M.V.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 07:59 am: Edit

Eddie Crutchfield:

It sounds like the littoral ships are just a basing unit for automated mine clearing equipment.

Underwater drones to map the seabed to be targeted by other weapons launched from the littoral ship.

It should be within the capacity of the littoral ship (s).

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 09:07 am: Edit

Talks have collapsed. President Trump has announced a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. It is now either all ships pass freely or no ships will pass through.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 09:29 am: Edit

Looks like a job for the United States Marine Corps.

A Google inquiry resulted in this:

Quote:” Based on March 2026 reports, the US is considering capturing Iran's Kharg Island, a key oil hub, using a rapid-response force centered on the USS Tripoli (carrying the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit) and the USS Boxer (carrying the 11th MEU). The operation, managed by Central Command, may involve special operations forces and U.S. Army troops, potentially including elements from the 82nd Airborne Division.
Task & Purpose
Task & Purpose
+4
Key Units and Assets:
31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU): Embarked on the USS Tripoli, specialized in amphibious assaults.
11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU): Embarked on the USS Boxer.
Special Operations Forces: Likely to include Navy SEALs and Army Rangers for initial insertions.
82nd Airborne Division: Mentioned as part of the personnel for potential operations.
Task & Purpose
Task & Purpose
+3
Ships and Aviation:
USS Tripoli (LHA-7): America-class amphibious assault ship serving as a light carrier for F-35B aircraft and MV-22 Ospreys.
USS Boxer (LHD-4): Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.
Aviation/Support: F-35B Lightning II jets, MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, CH-53 Sea Stallions, and AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters.
Naval Escort: U.S. Navy destroyers are expected to provide anti-missile and anti-drone defense for the landing force.
The Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Monitor
+4
The operation aims to seize the facility, with Marines using Ospreys and helicopters to establish a beachhead, potentially targeting the island's airfield.”

Is this just a distraction to get the Iranian Republican Guard to deploy addition troops and equipment to the Karg island for target practice? Or is it genuinely a blatant frontal assault on an economic target that Iran can’t afford to lose?

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 11:54 am: Edit

It certainly looks like things are going poorly.

Trump, 4/8/26: "We reopened the Strait of Hormuz." (we signed a deal to do so.)
Trump, 4/9/26: "Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz." (Iran broke the deal.)
Trump, 4/10/26: "The Strait of Hormuz will reopen fairly soon." (We are moving to fix it.)
Trump, 4/11/26: "We're minesweeping the Strait of Hormuz." (We are starting to fix it.)
Trump, 4/12/26" "We're blockading the Strait of Hormuz." (Iran would not see reason. We will make them.)

(Paren comments by SVC)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 12:08 pm: Edit

It does seem like its all out of order, does it not?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 12:56 pm: Edit

We make war with the enemy that picked us, not the enemy we picked.

I would pick France. Easier to get them to surrender, better loot. Dismantle the Eifel Tower and move it to Las Vegas.

Wait... What?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 12, 2026 - 02:44 pm: Edit

They did it with London Bridge.

Personally, I would pick San Antonio, TX. Perfect fit with the river walk.

By Cookgbp on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 02:09 am: Edit

Authentication Error

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 12:55 pm: Edit

A Ukrainian Leopard 2A6 recently hit and killed a T72 at a record breaking range of 3.4 MILES or 5.5kms. This is the longest tank vs tank kill in military history. Details are unclear but the kill is regarded as confirmed. It is unknown how many times similar shots missed.

Ukraine is converting some Leopard Is into howitzers, replacing the cannons and ammunition.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 01:01 pm: Edit

I imagine that a German Leopard 1 converted Howitzer would be somewhat resistant to splinter and fragment damage compared to a towed artillery gun or howitzer.

Is the main reason for the conversion the speed and mobility that the Leopard1 has? Would this allow for “shoot and scoot” tactics?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Air Defense: NATO Needs Ukrainian Style Air Defense
April 13, 2026: The Ukraine war has alarmed NATO nations and forced them to rely on Ukrainian experience in defeating Russian air and missile attacks. Russian air attacks involve nearly a thousand Iranian Shahed drones sent after Ukrainian targets night after night. In Europe airports have been shut down repeatedly because of the presence of drones. These usually turn out to be civilian drones, but no one wants to take a chance that some are Russian. European NATO nations are urged to identify some drones as outright attacks that can spread panic because such drone operations could damage local military facilities and civilian infrastructure.
The solution could be found in determining what can be done by local and national military authorities to augment essential hardening infrastructure against air attacks.
Consultation with Ukraine led some European NATO countries to include their local manufacturers and civilian volunteers in private sector-led air-defense employment to benefit from the Ukrainian experience in air defense. Then there is the insurance angle. If civilian and commercial facilities are under threat, their insurance rates can rapidly escalate. This can disrupt or halt economic activity. A solution can be found with international financial institutions who can incorporate physical security into pricing models, just as insurance coverage is part of project finance.
The Ukraine War has f0rced NATO countries to confront the possibility of dealing with Russian aggression in the near future. NATO nations have long depended on air power as their first line of defense. These aircraft use various missiles and smart bombs for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses/SEAD and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses/DEAD. The Russian threat is not immediate because Russian leader Vladimir Putin recently admitted that Russia was having serious economic problems that had to be addressed immediately. That means, according to the Russians, even if the Ukraine Wars, it will be three years or more before the Russians are ready to resume their operations against Ukraine and eventually NATO nations.
Since early 2022 Russia has used thousands of ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles, unguided rockets and bombs, and one-way attack drones on Ukraine. European NATO members noticed and sought to prepare their existing air defense systems to meet an attack from Russia. Currently each NATO nation has its own air defense systems, but most have none at all because, until Russia turned violent, there seemed no need for air defenses. With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the resulting Russian Federation seemed peaceful. Russia had no enemies. That was not true because Russian governments tend to be paranoid and aggressive and, when Vladimir Putin gained power in 1999 and proceeded to change laws to make himself president for life, he contended that some of Russia’s neighbors were plotting against it. Then Putin increased the size of the military and sought to take, by force, neighboring territories he believed should be part of Russia.
In 2022 Russia decided to grab more territory it believed it was part of Russia. In this case it was Ukraine, another new country created when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 and was divided into fourteen new countries. Among them was the Russian Federation and Ukraine. After Ukraine lost Crimea and portions of Luhansk and Donetsk provinces in 2014, they sought to get back these territories via negotiations with Russia. That dragged on until 2022 when Russia decided to settle the matter by invading Ukraine. If Russia could conquer Ukraine, the disputes over Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would disappear.
Russia did not expect the intensity of the Ukrainian resistance and their invasion failed. Then in August 2024 Ukraine invaded Russia, sending troops into Kursk province. Russian resistance was virtually non-existent. The Ukrainian invasion force was accompanied by over a thousand drones which provided surveillance as well as the ability to attack any Russian defenders. The drone-based air war in Ukraine developed naturally between Ukraine and the Russian but NATO nations that provided military aid to Ukraine were mystified and sought to find out more about this new form of warfare. All the Ukrainian drones were designed and built in Ukraine. This new form of air warfare was born and evolved in Ukraine, with the Russians playing catch up to maintain their war effort. Many Ukrainians built drones at home or in small workshops and sent them to soldiers they knew. Ukrainian soldiers often tinkered with drones they received, making improvements before launching them at the enemy.
Ukraine shared its knowledge with their NATO supporters and that led to some NATO nations establishing factories to produce drones for Ukraine. One thing NATO nations were concerned about was how they could defend themselves against hostile drones as well as the many ballistic and cruise missiles Russia had used against Ukraine. NATO nations had no defense against such weapons and, given continued Russian aggression, these weapons might one day be used against a NATO nation bordering Russia.
Some NATO nations, like France, Britain, Germany, Italy and the United States, developed and built weapons for export. These nations had no enemies, until Russia attacked Ukraine. As part of NATO support for Ukraine, member nations sent weapons they built for their own use and export. This included a lot of air defense weapons that were getting their first use in a near-peer war between two nations with equal technical capabilities. Contributors noted the performance of their weapons and modified them to make them more effective. The manufacturers could now tout their air defense weapons as combat proven in Ukraine to prospective export customers. That’s a very effective sales technique. One item that is missing is equipment to integrate the air defense systems for multiple countries. This would also provide each country with an electronic display of their entire air combined defense networks as well as the location of any intruders.
NATO nations now have numerous air defense systems that have been used successfully in combat. Currently this helps with exports but in the future, it could prove essential if Russia decided to attack more neighboring countries. According to Russian announcements and NATO predictions the first clash could come before the end of the decade. The side that is better prepared will prevail.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Winning: Essential Ukrainian Combat Systems
April 13, 2026: Ukraine has developed the Delta digital battle management system. With Delta, Ukrainian soldiers can detect a target and pass that data to an attack drone operator, who then destroys the target. The Delta system software dramatically reduces the time between detection and attack. Delta does this by capturing video from surveillance drones to provide overall battlefield data with all Ukrainian troops using the system. Russian troop positions are detected and included in the battle map in real time. This made possible automated warfare in which enemy targets were assigned to specific Ukrainian units who then carried out the attacks. This has caused many Russian troops to spend most of their time hiding from the Delta system, because detection usually means death.
Using an AI/Artificial Intelligence system the Ukrainians can track over 10,000 Russian weapons systems, troop positions and drone operators each week. The map of these contacts is continually updated as the Russians move or are destroyed. At the same time Ukrainian commanders can also see the positions and movements of their own troops. This has dramatically reduced the incidents of friendly fire when Ukrainian soldiers are hit by Ukrainian drones or artillery fire.
Recently, Ukrainian drone operators joined in a NATO military exercise in Estonia. As the wargame proceeded, the NATO officers were shocked to see two of their battalions hit repeatedly and rendered ineffective. Ukrainians urged NATO to adopt Delta or develop something similar. After the demonstration, the NATO commanders were clamoring for more information and assistance in setting up their own Delta systems.
One of last year’s innovations in drone warfare was the Ukrainian use of AI for drone targeting systems. The AI drone contains a targeting system that finds targets. The AI drone operator confirms which targets are real and, once a target is confirmed, the AI targeting system needs no further communication with anyone. It is resistant to all forms of jamming.
Modern warfare has been radically changed by the introduction of First Person View/FPV drones. 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 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. 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’s too late.
Five million drones were built last year. The total for 2024 was 1.5 million drones. There have been problems. Chinese component producers are having a hard time keeping up, and, last year, to assist the Russians, China halted sending drone components to Ukraine. Suppliers in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere were quickly found. Over 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 in 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.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Procurement: North Korea Builds Destroyers Faster Than The USN
April 12, 2026: North Korea launched two destroyers in 2025, with two more coming in succeeding years. By 2030 North Korea will have twelve of these ships in service. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy builds 1.6 Burke destroyers a year. North Korea had little shipbuilding capacity until the 2020s, with most construction limited to submarines, including many smaller subs that carried a dozen crew and two torpedoes. The first two North Korean destroyers had 74 VLS/Vertical Launch System cells. The American Burke class ships have 90 VLS.
Subsequent North Korean destroyers will be 60 percent larger, eliminating the main gun and have over 120 VLS cells. The North Korean shipbuilding effort is producing ships superior in quality and capability to Russian warships.
And then there is another issue. The U.S. Navy is arguably ceasing to be the most powerful fleet in the Pacific Ocean, though American allies like South Korea, Japan and Australia have contributed a growing number of warships and submarines. The Australians made a deal with the United States and Britain to build a fleet of seven nuclear powered submarines as well as a force of fast frigates that can reach areas where an attacking Chinese fleet would show up. Meanwhile the Chinese Navy is growing at a rapid pace. Currently the U.S. Navy has 293 warships and expects to expand that to 309 by 2030. In that time period China expects to have twice as many warships, though Chinese corruption and rapid population decline make the effective numbers and manning of its purported 2030 fleet suspect.
Because China is currently the largest builder of commercial ships in the world, it is nominally capable of building more warships and doing it quickly than the United States. Right after World War II, and into the 1950s, the United States had the largest shipbuilding industry in the world. That was eventually overtaken by rebuilt European shipbuilding firms and by the end of the 20th century. Now it is China’s turn to produce half the commercial shipping in the world.
Over a decade ago the U.S. Department of Defense told the U.S. Navy that it must be more mission oriented, and less concerned about maintaining certain quantities and types of ships. In short, the navy leaders were being warned to build, and maintain, forces needed for current, and likely, missions, and to forget about refighting World War II or the Cold War.
At the end of World War II, the United States possessed the largest and most powerful navy the world had ever seen. Even with the massive demobilization after World War II, the U.S. still deployed most of the world's active sea-going warships. In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the Soviet Union tried to create a fleet large enough to threaten American naval dominance but came close only on paper. The Soviet fleet was too expensive for the Russians to maintain, and it largely disappeared within a few years of the Soviet Union's demise (in 1991).
American admirals were asked to reassess which ships are worth what cost for what jobs. For example, a 36,000 ton, World War II Essex class carrier cost $540 million, adjusted for inflation, and 24 were built. These ships were crucial for winning control of the seas but times have changed. We think of World War II in the Pacific as the war of the carriers and the beginning of the carrier age. Well, that's technically true. But keep in mind that only five carrier to carrier battles were fought during the entire war, all between May 1942 and June 1944. There hasn't been another carrier versus carrier battle since the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944. That's over seventy years, and another one doesn't look too likely any time soon. The carrier versus carrier era lasted only twenty-five months. In fact, the last carrier to carrier combat that was anything like an even fight was the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands. This was also the last time an American carrier was sunk in a carrier battle. In effect, the Golden Age of Carrier Battles lasted from May to October 1942. Five months. Four battles.
Carriers proved to be more useful against everything but other carriers. Attacks on enemy bases, shipping and in support of amphibious landings comprised the bulk of carrier activity throughout the war. Although land-based aircraft were two to three times as effective as carrier planes, the carriers could be swiftly moved across the vast expanse of the Pacific. It was this mobility that made carriers less effective. The carriers could not lug around as much avgas or munitions as a land base could stockpile. Operating at sea caused more damage to the aircraft, and the shortage of space on a carrier made aircraft maintenance more difficult. But despite these limitations, the aircraft carrier reigned supreme across the Pacific.
As long as the carriers stayed away from more numerous land-based aircraft, something the Japanese weren't able to muster by 1944, the carriers could slug it out with anything they came up against. Note that the last American carrier lost in combat was a victim of land-based aircraft. And the second most dangerous foe of carriers was submarines. Thus, since late 1942, the carrier situation hasn't changed. The U.S. carrier fleet is supreme and its only foe is a large number of land-based aircraft and submarines. But with longer ranged land-based aircraft, thanks to inflight refueling, how many carriers are needed. A Nimitz class carrier, which is four times larger, by internal volume, than an Essex class carrier, costs $6 billion, and ten were built. Is the Nimitz eleven times as effective as the Essex? A World War II U.S. diesel-electric submarine cost $36 million adjusted for inflation. A modern diesel electric costs ten times as much. Nuclear attack subs cost $2 billion.
Ships are a lot more expensive today because they are larger and a lot more capable. Better weapons, electronics and machinery have made them deadlier. These new ships have smaller crews, but even with that cost savings, these ships are much more expensive. The Department of Defense is telling the navy, in rather strong terms, that there will not be enough money to pay for replacing many of the major warships currently in service. The navy must plan to get by with fewer than 11 aircraft carriers. These 100,000 ton vessels are unique to the United States. No one else has ever had anything like them. These large Nimitz class carriers have been very useful, especially since smart bombs became cheaper and more reliable. With Nimitz class carriers, the navy can put accurate firepower on where most of the world's population lives, which is near a coast. In late 2001, carrier aircraft provided most of the bombers over Afghanistan.
But the navy won't get enough money to keep eleven of these carriers in service. The last time there were 12 of these carriers in service was in the 1990s and the navy is more likely to have fewer large carriers rather than more in the next few decades. The large carriers are too expensive and the navy has less and less shipyard capacity to build any ships. The government refuses to invest in more shipyards and that prevents maintaining the current size of the fleet, much less expanding it or repairing battle damage in war.
Same deal with the dozen large amphibious support ships, which look like small aircraft carriers. Only three others exist, all operated by allies. And then there is the American nuclear submarine fleet of 50 boats, which is more than the rest of the world, including lots of allies, combined.
Meanwhile, new technologies make robotic ships, submarines and aircraft affordable and effective. The navy is being told to buy more of this stuff. Robotic equipment is cheaper and, well, more expendable. If the navy needs this new gear and is scrambling to find the cash to replace the old-school ships and aircraft, something has to give. The Department of Defense brass are telling the admirals that the old is out and the new should be at the top of the shopping list. Just a suggestion, of course.
Over the last two decades the U.S. Navy has been trying to compel the firms that build its warships to deal with persistent issues of poor quality, delays and inflated prices. For decades, there have been growing problems with low-balling. This is where the shipbuilder gives the navy a very low estimate of what a proposed ship is going to cost. Then, when construction is underway, costs creep up, often resulting in the ship costing more than twice the original estimate. When this practice began, after World War II, it was with the cooperation of the navy that wanted to have an easier time convincing Congress to allow construction of new ships.
For over two decades the navy has been saying, no more, while the ship builders say, OK. But the low-balling continues. All current ship building projects are over budget. The worst case was the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), which was to be the poster boy for doing it right. Didn't work out that way. When building plans for the LCS were first announced, each one was supposed to cost $223 million. That soon escalated to $460 million, and the navy is confident that the ultimate price would be higher. Congress was outraged and demanded that the admirals do something. The admirals did nothing and ordered their public relations experts to portray Congress as the cause of all these problems.
The real problem is sole source procurement of big deck vessels, plus the Navy's penchant for changing designs frequently, often weekly. The real reasons for the problem goes back to when the navy destroyed the Navy Yard system, which was the best check on corruption and carelessness in shipbuilding. How does one bring back quality production, or even prove it can be done better, if there are no government owned shipyards that enable the navy to find out how it can be done better?
The shipbuilding industry will sometimes blame the unions. But Norway, Denmark, Japan, Korea, etc., maintain effective, efficient shipbuilding operations and have strong unions. The principal problem with the US Navy's yard system was that there were too many yards, more than the Royal Navy had. But the basic notion of having navy-owned yards was so that the service and the taxpayer could have an independent authority on ship construction and repair.
Examples abound. Back in the '30s, with substantial construction contracts being let again, the Navy placed orders for three very similar classes of destroyers, two to be built in private yards and one in navy yards. There were about a dozen ships all together. The end result was that the navy-built ships came in on time, on budget, and with few teething problems, while the privately built ones ran over in time and money and required some additional work after completion.
Post-World War II, the shipbuilding industry decided it needed the work more than the navy's yards did, and convinced Congress to pass a series of interesting laws that marginalized the navy's yards. One good one was a law that came out of the Virginia congressional delegation that mandated that modernization, maintenance, and repair jobs be done at yards in proximity to where ships were based. This was very good for Newport News, but meant that navy yards in places like New York, where there were usually no ships based, became uneconomical. We've only got a few navy-owned yards now, and none of them do construction.
The private shipbuilders and the shipping lines, plus their local members of Congress, have also contributed to the decline of the merchant marine, though they blame the unions, OSHA, EPA, cheap foreign labor, and so on. The problem, as in so many areas of military procurement, is politics. The defense budget is seen as a source of votes, above all. No politician will admit it, but the facts speak for themselves.
At sea the navy has its own problems. In 2021 the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, which then and now controls most of the warships in the U.S. Navy, had a lot of embarrassing personnel and leadership problems which had been around since 2010. These only became visible to the general public when there were major mishaps, like ship collisions or anything that involved loss of life. In 2017 these problems became so bad, and public, that the commander of the Pacific Fleet was fired for failure to do his job.
Then it became public that the Pacific Fleet, which not only contains most American warships, but also most navy personnel and overseas bases, suffered a more serious but generally unpublicized problem. Between 2016 and 2018 Pacific Fleet submarines, and their two support ships did not receive the required computer and computer network security inspections. A recent navy-wide audit of cybersecurity found that the Pacific Fleet Submarine Command was unable to get enough qualified cyber security specialists to carry out the required inspections and deal with any problems discovered. Pacific Fleet policy was to concentrate available network security personnel on servicing surface ships and land installations, which were connected to the Internet all the time. The submarines had no Internet access most of the time because while at sea the nuclear subs rarely operated on the surface. Submarine crews have limited email access, which means no attachments and low risk of malware getting into the submarine network.
The Pacific Fleet was also dependent on the fact that many systems in submarines were independent of each other and the only ship-wide network was based on Linux, which is less frequently attacked by hackers than computers using Windows, Apple OS or Android. The U.S. military, especially the navy, switched from Windows to Linux over twenty years ago in part because of reduced security risks. But those risks did not disappear, which was why the navy mandated cybersecurity inspections every three years to assess the security of shipboard systems. In a similar fashion and for similar reasons many large companies, especially in banking and finance, also switched to Linux and were the first to realize hackers had noted the shift. Those hacking groups that specialize in attacking large businesses had found it worth the effort to spend more time and money finding exploitable vulnerabilities in Linux.
American military cybersecurity experts noticed this but the Pacific Fleet and COMSUBPAC did not take note of how critical these new vulnerabilities were. The cybersecurity audits provided an early warning of vulnerability because the first thing a hacker that got into a submarine network would do is carry out an extensive, and time consuming, exploration of the network to find vulnerable areas and develop a plan on how to get into those areas to plant hidden system monitors and system destroying software that can be activated remotely or if certain warlike actions are detected.
Many militaries and governments, like China and North Korea, also switched to Linux to reduce network security vulnerability. Chinese military cybersecurity experts have a list of known vulnerabilities and potential ones that their hackers could use to get into U.S. Navy systems. Cybersecurity on submarines is very important because most American nuclear subs are in the Pacific and are a major threat to the growing Chinese fleet.
It wasn’t just the Pacific Fleet commander who was negligent. Higher-ranking admirals than the relieved Pacific Fleet commander are also responsible for this problem developing. Some of them were competent enough to order the navy-wide audit, which found a lot of problems the navy would prefer to keep out of the news, at least until they are fixed. The Pacific submarine force cybersecurity problems are still not completely known, much less being fixed.
The current problems in the Pacific Fleet are a side effect of the post-1991 shift of U.S. Navy forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific. During World War II most of the Navy was operating in the Pacific but after 1945, the Atlantic Fleet grew more powerful. This was in preparation for a potential battle with the growing naval power of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, their fleet wasted away within a decade. The American Atlantic Fleet no longer had a major opponent. Meanwhile, China, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran provided plenty of work for the Pacific Fleet, which normally supplied ships for Middle East and South Asian emergencies.
As the Pacific Fleet grew in size the Atlantic Fleet gradually disappeared until it was renamed, and reorganized, into the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, which is responsible for the training, maintenance, and operation of naval forces including ships, aircraft, and land installations on both coasts plus providing support and coverage of less vital areas. By 2020 there was only the Pacific Fleet and the rest of the navy.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Surface Forces : USN Increases Production Of Anti-Submarine Mines
April 12, 2026: the U.S. Navy is increasing its production of the Hammerhead anti-submarine mine system. This mine is designed to detect, classify, and engage submarines and can be deployed by unmanned underwater drones to deal with increasingly capable Russian and Chinese submarines. The Hammerhead system uses underwater sensors to monitor large areas for submarine activity. Each Hammerhead module consists of a tube with a mooring device at the bottom and a battery pack, above that is a signal processing and decision system followed by the torpedo with a sensor and communication system at the top of the module.
Once a target is detected and confirmed as a hostile submarine, the mine releases the torpedo capable of finding, following and sinking the submarine, or surface ship.
Hammerheads can be placed on shallow sea bottoms and left to monitor the surrounding area for threats. Ideal locations for Hammerheads are sea lanes enemy forces might use, or to guard friendly naval bases. The navy plans to use underwater drones to recharge batteries and update software. Larger underwater drones can be used to retrieve Hammerheads and bring them to a nearby naval base or ship for repairs, upgrades or replacement if a Hammerhead is too far gone for further use.
At the same time American naval strategists are seeking a solution to the problems presented by the potential widespread use of drones by and against naval forces. This is not a theoretical problem but a reality. In the Black Sea, Ukrainian drones forced the Russian Black Sea Fleet to withdraw to the eastern shore of the Black Sea. Sevastopol was no longer a safe place to be, and Russian ships could no longer launch their Kalibr cruise missiles without risking attack by Ukrainian drones. The presence and aggressive use of the drones means that Ukraine’s grain corridor has been kept open despite Russia’s threats to interfere. Beyond symbolic significance, the corridor holds critical economic importance for Ukraine and contributed over 5 percent of GDP growth in 2024 because of the grain shipments.
The aggressive and successful use of Ukrainian drones against the Russian Black Sea fleet was unprecedented in the history of naval warfare. Not only were these drones tactically successful but financially as well. For example, new frigates cost about $1.5 billion each. That much money can also pay for 5,000 drones. Destroyers cost twice as much as frigates. The frigates and destroyers are high seas ships that can travel all over the world. The drones operate in coastal waters although some of the larger drones can operate up to a thousand kilometers from where they were launched. These drones carry video cameras and satellite-based communications systems to collect information and, in peacetime, do so without fear of attack. Severe storms are another matter, but any storm damage will be broadcast as it is happening, at least until the video cameras or communications equipment is disabled.
Commercial cargo ships can carry hundreds of armed flying, surface water and underwater drones equipped with satellite communications so operators anywhere in the world can control them. These drones can be covertly launched at sea to carry out attacks on targets in the, area or move to a nearby harbor and remain tied to a dock until needed. The only maintenance is keeping the drone batteries charged. These drones are a radical new weapon for naval warfare and the war at sea will never be the same because of the success of Ukrainian drones in their victorious campaign against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and launched from secretly parked cargo containers to attack any target.
Initially the Ukrainian water-going drones were Sea Baby, Mother, and MAGURA. At the end of 2023 Cossack Mother, top speed of 100 kilometers an hour, entered service. Manufacture of these drones is done in underground facilities to avoid Russian missile and guided bomb attacks.
Sea Baby carrying 850 kg of explosives was used in the mid-2023 Kerch Bridge attack. MAGURA carries 320 kg of explosives while Mamai carries 450 kg. These drones are no longer used just for delivering explosives against a target, they can also be used for reconnaissance when equipped with video cameras that broadcast what they see back to the drone operator. Some drones have been armed with small rocket launchers or surface-to-air missiles. Malyuk has a range of over 700 kilometers, which means they are suitable for operations on the high seas. Endurance is about 60 hours, and top speed is over 70 kilometers an hour. MAGURA has similar characteristics. Mamai was used in the long range attack at the distant naval base at Novorossiysk on Russia’s Black Sea eastern, which is a thousand kilometers from Crimea.
Ukraine has been developing subsurface drones since 2022 and in early 2023 the first one, the Toloka2 TK-150 entered service. This drone was 2.5 meters long and equipped with a sensor mast that remained above the surface for navigation and to identify targets. Toloka2 can also carry a small explosive warhead. More recently, Ukraine developed the larger Marichka drone that is 6 meters long and one meter in diameter.
Ukrainian naval drones and land based missiles destroyed over a third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and forced the survivors to take shelter at Russian ports over a thousand kilometers from Crimea. While Russia still occupies Crimea, the area is under siege by Ukrainian naval drones and land based missiles. Soon Russia will no longer be able to supply Crimea because of this. The Kerch Strait bridge from Russia to Crimea is in bad shape and can only allow limited truck traffic. By the end of 2024 Russia had withdrawn all of its ships from Crimea and shut down its ship repair facilities. Ukraine has the means to demolish what is left of the bridge whenever they want to. This will happen when Ukraine decides to blockade Crimea and force the Russians to abandon the peninsula because they cannot supply it.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Cuba continues to have other problems, like hunger, electricity blackouts and a total lack of public services. This is nothing new for Cuba. Its economy has been in free-fall since the Soviet Union collapsed 35 years ago, and essential cash and commodities, mainly oil, subsidies stopped. While expanding the tourism business helped avoid complete economic catastrophe, one of the major casualties has been the national railroad. Much cargo and most passenger service halted as the railroad system slowly disintegrated from lack of investment. That changed when China and Iran came forward to finance new rolling stock. 550 cargo wagons and 200 passenger cars came from Iran, and a hundred engines from China and supporting gear, especially new signaling and communications.
Earlier China and Iran signed loan deals with Cuba. This was not a new relationship. When the Russians moved out the Cubans reacted badly to the cutting of Soviet subsidies, China and Iran moved in. This has proved useful. Back in July 2003, satellite broadcasters transmitting television shows to Iran found their signals being jammed. The source of the jamming was quickly traced to Cuba. A satellite signal is very difficult to jam as it comes down from the satellite. But if you are close to the ground station that beams the signal up to the satellite, you can more easily interfere with that. At first it was thought that the Cuban government, using an old Soviet era electronic eavesdropping facility outside Havana, were doing the jamming as a favor to Iran which buys Cuban support with supplies of cut rate oil. The Chinese now ran the old Soviet facility and paid well. The Cuban government denied it had anything to do with the jamming and said it would find out where the jamming was coming from, and they did. Within a few weeks, the Cuban government reported that they had traced the jamming signal to a suburban compound owned by the Iranian embassy. The Cubans ordered the jamming to stop, and it did. But the Iranians stuck around and began to develop the kind of relationship that China already had. That's how you build, or rebuild, a railroad.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: Iranian Drone Warfare
April 11, 2026: Changing technologies and large numbers of inexpensive drones demonstrate the future of warfare. The recent attacks on Iran included Lucas, a cheaper American made drone similar to the Iranian Shahed-136. Lucas was developed and put into production within 18 months, an unprecedented, for the United States, achievement in weapons procurement. The Ukrainian introduction of drone warfare was unexpected and had a devastating effect on the Russian invaders. Currently Ukrainian drones have captured videos of Russian soldiers committing suicide rather than die from the drones surrounding them.
In the Persian Gulf, Iran unleashed a barrage of drone attacks on Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. In addition to causing damage to facilities in the Gulf States, seven American military personnel were killed, and a U.S. AWACS aircraft was destroyed. Ukraine responded by sending dozens of drone operators and hundreds of interceptor’s drones to defeat incoming Iranian drones. Patriot missiles were used to stop the Iranian missiles, but the Gulf States noted that they would use up their Patriot interceptor supply by the middle of April.
The United Arab Emirates/UAE reported on March 2 that it had so far been attacked by 174 Iranian ballistic missiles, 8 cruise missiles, and 689 drones. The American firm that manufactures Patriot revealed that it had produced some six hundred Patriot missiles in 2025 and plans to increase production by two thousand by 2027, but that is too late for the current conflict. You go to war with what you’ve got and soon the American forces will have nothing. The only alternative is Ukraine, which manufactures its own drones and will be asked to divert some of that production to American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the Israeli air strikes on Iran mean that other countries have learned much about how to defend against major drone attacks. This somewhat reduces the potential impact on a massive use of drones against any target in the future.
American defense planners developing operations for a future war with China in the Pacific can learn much from this. European nations preparing to defend against future Russian attacks need to pay attention to how Israel disarmed Iran with a series of air attacks.
In the end, what many nations learned from the Israeli experience is that you have to be more innovative and resourceful to survive. Innovation and resourcefulness are not found in many military plans. This must change. The old adage that you go to war with the forces you’ve got is applicable when planning for future conflicts. For example, five years ago the British Army established the Fight Club Association to organize use of a commercial wargame, Combat Mission: Shock Force 2/CMSF2, for all army wargamers to play and then compare their experiences. For decades military wargamers have been using military and commercial wargames to play each other informally. Fight Club recognizes that some official recognition is needed to address the problem of what role the enemy plays in battles. Not just some friendly forces designated as the enemy but a foe that is equipped like the enemy and uses enemy doctrine. This makes a big difference, something that has been recognized since the 1970s.
CMSF2 has been around since 2007, when it first appeared as a single player game portraying a U.S. invasion of Syria. Over the next three years several improved versions appeared. These included a two-player version for competing via the Internet and portraying a wide variety of national forces, including the British Army. In mid-2020 CMSF2 became available on the Steam website, which made multi-player use even easier. The game is unclassified so military players can use it freely and then discuss their experiences with other military players.
CMSF2 portrays tactical combat up to the battalion level. Individual vehicles and troops are portrayed in a realistic 3-D environment. The physics of the game are very realistic, including actual performance of various weapons. The army encouraged all troops, not just officers, to join in. Most importantly, the troops were encouraged to openly discuss their experiences playing a realistic real-time combat simulation in which participants could take command of either side. In the past emphasis had been placed on similar official combat simulations training troops to use their vehicles with the tactics they were trained to use. Most military wargames do not emphasize participants playing the enemy. But as chess players have known for centuries, the best way to learn how to defeat a live opponent is to play with an eye towards what can be done on both sides of the board. As the saying goes, in combat the enemy has a vote. Yet in most military training wargames this sort of thing is not encouraged.
The British Fight Club is not unique, except in the way it encourages everyone to use an unclassified multi-player game and then discuss their experiences with each other. For example, in 2000, noting that the troops spent a lot of time playing video games, the U.S. Army hired video games developer Pandemic to create the squad level Full Spectrum Warrior/FSW. Compared to your usual video game, the military version of FSW seemed to drag along at times. It can take a minute or more for troops to do some things, like move to another position or use a smoke grenade as it takes nearly a minute for the smoke screen to form. The player assumes the role of the squad leader, and uses the video game controller to intuitively give battlefield type commands to the two team leaders or, if need be, individual troops. The use of the game controller and the game software is pretty intuitive, allowing the player to handle a real time battlefield game without the game controls getting in the way. The commercial versions were released in 2004-5 while the military versions were available to the troops two years earlier.
With FSW the troops use the same drills and tactics taught to U.S. Army infantrymen today. The game is quite effective in showing users how well-trained combat troops are supposed to move. One reason the army put over a million dollars into FSW is another program, begun in 2002, to improve the combat skills of non-combat troops. FSW appeared to be a painless way to expose these clerks, mechanics, cooks and office workers to what they should do when under fire. There were scenarios in the game covering situations where non-combat troops have to fight. Many non-combat units are informally organized into squad sized units and often have machine-guns assigned as well. But unless the non-combat troops take the machine-guns and assault rifles out of the arms room regularly and practice, it does them little good to be armed.
The initial batch of scenarios involved going after irregular type fighters in Middle Eastern locations. By using the XBox, the players got photorealistic graphics and equally realistic sound. The army worked closely with the developers to make sure that the game was extremely realistic. The game was eventually available free to active and reserve army units. Ultimately, the military and commercial versions shipped on the same CD. That way, civilians could experience the more realistic, but less entertaining military version which has strictly realistic ammo loads and time durations for battlefield procedures. The game eventually had online multiplayer capabilities. The artificial intelligence of the enemy force was convincingly realistic and deadly.
Fight Club and FSW are part of the trend that, since the 1990s, has made the use of wargames much more common for commanders and troops. It has also demonstrated that the military can get realistic games created, or adapt commercial ones that are realistic enough. You'd think if there were one thing the military could build themselves, it would be wargames. Such has not been the case for a long time. The U.S. military's experience with wargames over the last 150 years has been quite dismal, with only the Navy proving capable of building most of their own stuff.
But in the 1960s, wargames became a popular entertainment for the civilian market. Initially, most of these wargames were based on historical campaigns and were pretty effective simulations. The reason for this was that, unlike the classified military wargames, the civilian ones were open to comment and criticism from their thousands of users. This kept the civilian wargame designers honest and on the ball. This is what the British Fight Club and the American FSW sought to exploit and it worked.
By the 1970s, the military began to notice the superiority of civilian wargames and began to use them, and called on civilian wargame designers to help out with military projects. All this operated largely in the background for decades, but in the 1990s the cooperation intensified. Part of this had to do with publishers of civilian wargames, and action games in general, using inexpensive and realistic graphic software. Anyone who has played video or computer games knows what this stuff looks like, and it's stunning. This visual realism makes these computer games much more useful for training the troops.
After 2000 numerous civilian-military wargame projects were undertaken. The U.S. Marines used the technology in the civilian game Operation Flashpoint to develop their Department of Defense VBS1 Virtual Battlefield. As is usually the case, the Marines were using the civilian developers of a game to modify the civilian game for specific Marine needs. VBS is still around and VBS4 was eventually released, with graphics and capabilities as good as any commercial game.
Many Department of Defense schools use civilian wargames for training. Shortly after FSW appeared, West Point cadets used the recently published commercial wargame Steel Beasts to learn mechanized wargames tactics. Again, the civilians who created the game have worked with the army to modify the game for more effectively meet Army training needs. Steel Beasts is still around, much improved and popular with tank crews, and civilian gamers, worldwide.
At the same time the Army also bought a license for a tactical level game, TacOps. This game was designed and programmed by a retired Marine officer, for free use throughout the Army. Another PC game, Spearhead, was modified for use in training tank officers. The air force has long been a user of civilian combat flight simulator games, and pilots hone their skills using networked versions of these games. The Air Force also makes use of its many technically savvy members to program their own wargames, often using commercial products as a model. The navy also makes use of flight and naval wargames, which have become popular with sailors on long overseas deployments. There's not much else to do on a ship for entertainment.
The entertainment angle is one reason commercial game developers are sought out for assistance and advice. Commercial products must draw the player in, something Department of Defense designed wargames don't always do. Despite all this use of commercial wargames over a decade ago, many of the Department of Defense produced wargames remain, but these at least let the troops learn how much better things can be, by comparison, when they use wargames created with the help of commercial wargame firms.
It was not that the military wasn’t trying, but most of the money went to computerized simulations that trained troops in the use of the vehicles and weapons they had and how they were supposed to use them. Experimentation was not encouraged, even though experimentation is a necessity once the troops meet real foes, who often have different, and sometimes unexpected, ideas about how to fight. There were a growing number of army officers who realized this and they eventually got permission to pursue this form of wargaming.
In the early 1990s, the U.S. Army began developing a software system that could model/wargame friendly or enemy forces at the battalion level or lower. This could be used in larger wargames as when more detail had to be shown. The result of this effort was Modular Semi-Automated Forces/ModSAF. The army had previously been working on the AI (artificial intelligence) problem, which led to the ongoing semi-automated forces project. It had been noted that the AI in commercial games was getting much better, but that was because there were two schools of thought on AI. The academic side, which the military depended on, expected perfection. That is hard to achieve, and expensive as well. Tactical level wargames require a lot of AI to function at all. Commercial developers just wanted something that worked, and, increasingly, they were getting impressive results. While ModSAF was a good effort at applying effective AI acceptable to the powers-that-be in the army scientific community, many army developers and scientists realized that more could be done.
In the late 1990s, ModSAF was taken over by the army wargaming operation, with the intention of developing a tactical wargame that used all the good material commercial developers were turning out, and put it in a package that suited military needs. That was a long list of needs. The new game, OneSAF, had to be useful to the troops, as well as researchers, including developers of new tactics, equipment and weapons. That meant a software package that was easy to modify and easy to use. By 2001, OneSAF had replaced ModSAF. The users were happy, and the developers used that good will to get more money, and freedom, to keep OneSAF up to date, and responsive to users.
To do all this, OneSAF had to, of necessity, become a revolutionary product. Consider its characteristics. OneSAF is free to government and military developers and is open source. That means it runs on a large number of systems including Windows, Linux, supercomputers, and so on. It was well documented and SME compliant. Also important is that the basic OneSAF package is a tool kit, which enables users to quickly adapt it to new uses. The core code was written by competent programmers, and the project is managed so that the code stays clean and easy to read. OneSAF also used managed code, like JAVA, to make it accessible and easier to use and modify. The army really got behind the project, assigning its best people to supervise it. Several senior people on the project are former infantry officers with PhDs in computer science. The army has been sending infantry officers to graduate school to study computer science for several decades, and OneSAF was an example of how that policy paid off.
OneSAF could handle combat from the level of individual troops up to brigade. In other words, it was a tactical combat simulation. It can be plugged into higher level wargames like WARSIM, so that a theater commander can drill down to see how street fighting in Fallujah was going. This included the ability to see how forces were deployed, and operating, anywhere from the Middle East to Afghanistan. This was done by building both systems so they could read the same data, and basically talk to each other. To further enhance this integration, many WARSIM developers have moved over to work on One SAF.
To do all this, OneSAF uses digitalized military maps and much of the electronic data already available from actual units. The software deals with a huge range of military factors, far more than your typical commercial wargame. For example, it can handle casualty care regarding who got hurt, to what extent and what could be done to help them. The individual accuracy and effectiveness of weapons from hand grenades up to missiles of all sorts are portrayed. The game could accurately represent transport and attack helicopters and ground vehicles from trucks to tanks. It deals with anti-aircraft systems, from firing an assault rifle at something in the sky to Patriot missiles. This includes modeling radar systems. It deals with mines, Chemical, Biological and Nuclear/NBC weapons, electronic warfare and all sorts of communications, laser designators, and all sorts of damage to weapons, equipment and troops. It also handles logistics and most of the reporting units usually do to each other. In short, it's a pretty comprehensive wargame. Because it's easy to modify, new types of weapons, like roadside bombs, can be modeled. When it was seen how effective current tactics were in keeping casualties down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was easy to modify the casualty routines to reflect this new reality.
OneSAF eventually replaced a number of older wargames like JANUS, JCATS, and so on. With OneSAF, it is now practical for unit commanders to use a wargame to plan and practice field exercises using maps of the actual terrain. This makes those exercises a lot cheaper and safer for the troops. Using OneSAF this way enables commanders to use the game for planning actual operations, again saving the lives of troops who, in the past, ran into something unexpected.
OneSAF was something of a stealth project. A lot of people in the military, and a few outside, heard of it. But few knew what it all really meant. Now you do. OneSAF is still around, with over a decade of software and capability improvements and a few new alternative names.
The army is also expanding the use of this first-person gaming technology to train non-combat troops. That's about 85 percent of personnel. That covers everything from medics to mechanics, interpreters, intelligence analysts and interrogators, and, well, everyone. These simulations also deal with psychological issues, like the impact of an ambush and combat in general, on NPCs and the abilities of the players themselves. Then there is the ultimate goal of having these training game systems everywhere, so that troops can just switch to the training software and use existing computers or whatever they use for their job and go through realistic training exercises. This is easy to do for tanks and other vehicles but requires special equipment, or more computers embedded into equipment, for everyone to be able to quickly switch to training simulation mode.
For the troops who do the fighting, all this is not enough. The combat troops need a realistic opponent, one who uses different weapons, tactics and ways of adapting. Surprise can be the most devastating battlefield weapon and as realistic as these simulations are, you need easy-to-learn and play games that are unclassified, accurate and widely available.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Information Warfare: Do Protests Topple Tyrants
April 10, 2026: Protests toppling governments happened in Armenia in 2018; Algeria, Bolivia, and Sudan in 2019; Sri Lanka in 2022; Bangladesh in 2024; and Madagascar in 2025. Currently, the American President is calling on Iranians to overthrow their Islamic dictatorship and replace it with a democracy. Before the 1980s, when the Islamic tyrants took over, Iran was a constitutional monarchy, complete with elections and excellent diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. In January 2026 Iran’s Islamic dictatorship killed more than 30,000 of its citizens for daring to demonstrate against Islamic rule.
Protests can succeed. Crucial to the success of protests are two factors: their enormous size, gathering crowds with hundreds of thousands of participants, and the rapid disintegration of the ruling group, with members of the military, the judiciary, and the government bureaucracy distancing themselves from the administration. This doesn’t always work, and that may, or may not, be the case with contemporary Iran.
The United States is often thought of being inconsistent, and supporting tyrants, even as America overthrew one in Iraq. Alas, the America supports tyrant’s thing is basically a myth. As with any nation going back several thousand years, the United States has always supported any foreign government that was willing to refrain from attacking American citizens or American economic and diplomatic interests. The U.S. government was generally praised for its statesmanlike behavior when it supported some dictatorships.
Remember the U.S. establishing relations with Yugoslavia and China? Ideology was rarely a factor here. To do otherwise just produces lots of headaches, and threats to American citizens overseas. Critics often point to the many times American agents, CIA or otherwise, have interfered with foreign governments, or even overthrown them. This practice long predates the founding of the United States. After all, it was French interference that helped us get out from under British control during that time. It became less fashionable, over the last half century, to conduct diplomacy that way, but that does not change the fact that gunboat diplomacy was an accepted practice for thousands of years. You can change your methods, but you can’t change history.
American interference in Yugoslavia Kosovo in 1999, and Iraq in 2003, were cases of this ancient practice. Both were meant to deal with troublesome tyrants, and both were widely criticized by other nations, many because they knew they also qualified for similar humanitarian treatment. Note that the last time Iraq was invaded was in 1941, when Iraq’s decision to side with the Germans, caused Britain to send a few divisions to march on Baghdad and replace the government. At the time, this was considered prudent diplomacy.
But Kosovo 1999 and Iraq 2003 were the kind of operations that would have hardly caused much comment before the 20th century. As the old saying goes, nations don’t have friends, only interests. And interests tend to change over time. During the Cold War period, most of the governments on the planet were right wing or left wing dictatorships. Both flavors were pretty brutal, although the leftists had a much higher body count, less effective economic policies, but better PR. Still, the U.S. would do business with anyone who would leave the United States alone. Thus, we always found ourselves with friends on both sides of the Arab-Israeli wars, and many other international disputes as well. Going out of your way to not support a country that is run by a tyrant is a dangerous, and often thankless, business. Politicians and diplomats have enough problems on their plate without going and looking for more. Everyone supports tyrants if these thugs seem securely in control of a nation. To do otherwise just gets you condemned in the United Nations, which refused to approve of the 1999 Kosovo, or 2003 Iraq operations. It's not supporting tyrants that gets America in trouble but removing them.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 13, 2026 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Warplanes: First F 35 Win Against Russian Aircraft
April 9, 2026: During the March war against Iran an Israeli American F-35 aircraft shot down a Russian built Yak-130 Iranian trainer aircraft. This was the first time an F-35 downed an enemy aircraft. The F-35 is a fifth-generation multirole fighter developed by the American company Lockheed Martin.
The F-35 carries numerous weapons, including AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, as well as Storm Shadow and AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles. It can also deploy JDAM precision-guided bombs weighing up to 910 kg, WCMD cluster munitions, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons, and Brimstone anti-tank missiles. Earlier, a Kuwaiti fighter accidentally shot down three US F-15 aircraft during military operations. All three American jets crashed, but their pilots ejected safely.
The Yak-130 had an interesting history. Twenty years ago Russia decided to standardize on the Yak-130 jet trainer, and bought over 200 of them. This aircraft first flew ten years ago, but the Russian air force could not afford to buy it back then. When money became available in the last few years, there developed a further complication. Another Russian manufacturer had a trainer, the MiG-AT. Political influence was deployed and it wasn't until this year that the air force generals were able to get permission to go forward with the Yak-130 purchase.
This aircraft is capable of performing many of the tricky maneuvers of Russia’s top fighters like the Su-27, MiG-29 and many modern Western fighters. The Yak-130 can also perform as a light bomber. The nine ton aircraft has a max speed of 1,000 kilometers an hour and a flight lifetime of 10,000 hours in the air. The two pilots sit one behind the other, and two engines make it a safer aircraft to fly. The Yak-130 can carry an external load of three tons of bombs, missiles or fuel tanks. Max range, on internal fuel, is 2,200 kilometers. Russia is selling the aircraft to foreign customers for about $15 million. The Yak-130 replaces the 1960s era L-29 and a 1970s upgrade, the L-39. The Russian air force received its first Yak-130s this year.
The Yak-130 is the most capable combat trainer in service, and its ability to operate as a light attack jet is a major bonus for many potential buyers. Irkut, the Russian manufacturer, is also pushing plans to use the Yak-130, as the basis for a combat drone. The Yak-130 already has some variants in development. There is the single seat fighter version, Yak-131, plus a reconnaissance variant and even a four seat VIP transport.
Russia is making a major sales push for the Yak-130. Sixteen were sold to Algeria earlier , and Indonesia has shown interest. For countries like Algeria and Indonesia, the ability to use the Yak-130 for combat missions, and lower, than regular combat aircraft, operating costs, are a major draw.
The Yak-130 was developed in cooperation with Italian firm Aermacchi, which went on to develop its own version, and sell it as the M-346. But the Italian version was more expensive, because of higher production costs.
FYEO