Archive through June 08, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through June 08, 2026
The shell it self is 50+ years if kept in dry place.
The propellent is shorter at 10-20 years but could be longer.
Fuzes, depend on what electronics are in them.
The Russo-Ukraine War allowed the West to give to Ukriane munitions that were nearing the end of there shelf life that we would have had to pay to destroy for them to use. Then we buy new shells that we'd have bought anyways.
US production had dropped to about 10k rds per month and had been there for a couple of decades. It's a little less than what we shoot a month, but hey we've got all of these Cold War stocks we can use. The US is now close to producing 100K rounds per month both for our use and to sell to our allies.
Europe is in the same boat and they are ramping up production of all types of munitions.
It depends on the chemical composition of the explosive or propellant. I had uneven results with twenty year old firecrackers at one time.
Pistol and rifle cartridges made when you are old enough to buy them without yourdad and stored in your closet will still be good when you’re too old to be handling a gun.
The antitank rockets stored in the garden shed, and we all have a few of those, not so much.
SVC, this was never about Trump or Biden for me. If you are interpreting my criticism of US actions as partisan, please know that I am a Republican. Biden and Obama were obviously way too weak. Obama pushed Ukraine into accepting at least 3 separate partial surrenders. Biden failed to deter the war and for the most part did not authorize Ukraine to use US support within Russia.
None of that excuses Trump's current weakness on Russia.
Not buying any claim he is "doing what he can". One part of fixing years of screwups is to avoid making them yourself. Instead:
"No cards", repeated sanctions relief for Russia, support for Russia's Orban (which thankfully failed), closed down factories for HIMARS ammunition in 2025, (idk if they were restarted later), "The last person we need help from is Zelensky", the 2-week intel cutoff, calling Zelensky a "dictator", trying to get Zelensky to give up his fortress belt, and neither Trump nor Vance will visit Ukraine, shut down US efforts to document Russian atrocities, trying to get Ukraine to hold elections while under attack, looking for a replacement for Zelensky, seems more interested in making money than in victory, did not learn from what Ukraine can do in time to put it to sorely-needed good use in Iran.
Ukrainians, who ought to know, gave him close to 50% approval when he was taking office the second time. Last I saw, it was down to about 20%.
I am not berating you, or any politician. I am angered by US weakness. On Ukraine, I have seen it continually since 2014, with Trump 2016-20 perhaps somewhat less bad than the others, but it's a very low bar.
As someone who was formerly involved with Intel, please allow me a bit of a rant:
We have a new acting Director of National Intelligence who has exactly zero experience with intelligence, national or otherwise. This despite explicit requirements by law for a nominee to have such (which this get around by not technically being a nominee). This despite our current war against a country renown for using terrorist cells. This despite our ongoing operations elsewhere. This despite the fat, juicy target of an election in five months.
To say that I am livid would be an understatement.
Attrition: Russian Language Fades Away
June 3, 2026: When the Soviet Union was still around, it was a coalition of many nations and most of the population did not speak Russian. During the 25 years since the Soviet Union collapsed there has been an accelerating decline in the number of non-Russian former Soviet Republic populations who speak or understand Russian. Many of these former Soviet areas now choose English as a second language. English is the primary language in international trade and commerce and is much easier to learn than one of the Chinese dialects.
The East European nations that were subject to Soviet rule from 1945 to 1989, gradually, then quickly, eliminated any evidence of Russian language or culture in their midst. This process has been going on in Ukraine for obvious reasons. The decline has been rapid. Currently, about two percent of the world’s population speaks Russian. That’s 250 million people. In 1989, just before the Soviet Union collapsed there were 300 million Russian speakers worldwide. That decline is accelerating with current estimates of only 150 million Russian speakers by 2040.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the world has come to see Russia as a dangerous outlaw nation. To make matters worse, current Russian leader Vladimir Putin believes it was a mistake to break up the Soviet Union in 1991 and many Russians agree with him. The fourteen new nations created or revived when the Soviet Union was dissolved believe otherwise. Opinion surveys and migration patterns indicate a mixed attitude towards the old Russian Empire. The big problem is that half the people in the old empire were not Slavs, although ethnic Russians were the majority among the half that was Slavic. Despite centuries of living in the same country, be it czarist Russia or the Soviet Union, all these ethnic groups never developed much affection or tolerance for each other. Most ethnic Russians living in non-Slav parts of the Empire, especially Central Asia and the Caucasus returned to Russia after 1991.
Most of those who stayed in non-Russian areas did so for economic reasons. That was also why non-Russians stayed in Russia, because what is now Russia is where the most economic opportunities always were. The wealthier and better educated population was a major reason Russia conquered all those other countries. But after 1991, those who never got used to the conquest left and do not want the conquerors back.
There’s also the racism factor. For example, about 40 percent of ethnic Russians thought other Slavs like Ukrainians or Byelorussians were capable of becoming Russians if they lived in Russia for a few years and switched their loyalty to Russia. But less than ten percent thought peoples from the Caucasus or Central Asia were capable of that. This xenophobia, or fear of outsiders, is nothing new for Russia. For 70 years the communists sought to eliminate this trait but only managed to suppress it and delude themselves into thinking it was gone. This is a common pattern in communist countries and throughout East Europe.
Xenophobia returned in the 1990s because of the collapse of the communist governments in 1989. It was worst in the Balkans, where civil war erupted as communist police states collapsed and optimists hoped for a democratic Yugoslavia. While that had long been a cherished goal in the region, it was not to be. Several years of vicious fighting between Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and Albanians followed and was not halted until 1999. The Caucasus also erupted and unlike Yugoslavia, a NATO peacekeeping force was not available to fix things there. In the Caucasus the usual Russian application of carrot/bribes and stick/violent suppression did not work either. Eventually in 1999 Russia had to reconquer parts of the Caucasus, especially Chechnya, to restore order.
Meanwhile, there has been a major ethnic shift in the Caucasus. Russians, and other people not native to the Caucasus, were driven out of the region by terrorism, corruption, and a bad attitude towards outsiders. It was worst in Chechnya, where Russians comprised 25 percent of the population in 1989, but only 2 percent in the 1990s. The decline was not as great in the rest of the Caucasus but it has been massive, with more than half the Russians who were living in the Caucasus having left by 2011. Actually, this trend began in the 1950s, right after tyrant Josef Stalin died in 1953 and Russia began to trim the power of the secret police. The departure of ethnic Russians from the Caucasus simply accelerated after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. In Central Asia about half the nearly ten million ethnic Russians living there in 1991 left.
The 2014 Russian operation to take the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine had a bracing effect on the other countries that, until 1991, were part of the ancient Russian Empire. The Crimean operation was the second such land grab Russia had undertaken since 2008. The first was against tiny Georgia. Many of these former Russian subjects feel that the Russians are trying to get their empire back. Ask many Russians that question and most agree that it would be a nice thing. Some Russians are more outspoken and bluntly call for the empire to be reassembled no matter what.
In reaction to this, the forlorn fourteen nations that were part of the Soviet Union until 1991, as well as many East European states that were subject to Russian control from the end of World War II to 1989, became very nervous. Poland was particularly agitated because large parts of Poland were part of the Russian Empire for most of the 18th and 19th centuries. Same situation with Finland, which broke away after World War I and had to fight off a Russian invasion in 1940 and many threats since then to stay independent. That makes the forlorn fourteen the scared sixteen. All of these nations have noted what happened to Georgia and Ukraine with great trepidation and are responding in expected, and unexpected ways.
The fourteen former Russian imperial possessions that regained their independence are the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the five Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Poland, the Baltic States and Finland escaped from the empire after World War I but only Finland managed to stay free through World War II. The Baltic States were retaken during World War II and Poland remained nominally independent but was occupied by Russian troops and took orders from Russia until 1989.
Poland and the Baltic States managed to join NATO after the Cold War ended and are hoping that the mutual defense terms of the NATO alliance will dissuade Russia. Nevertheless all four, plus Finland, have increased their military readiness this year and are seeking assurances from the West that they will have help against Russia. Many Finns have called for Finland to join NATO, but a large minority has opposed this because of the fear it would anger the Russians. That changed after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Russia justified the invasion because Ukraine, like most Finns, believed that NATO membership was preferable to trusting Russia to always behave. Even Sweden, never part of the Russian empire and successfully neutral since the early 19th century, joined NATO for protection from an increasingly aggressive Russia.
The Stans of Central Asia have another option, China. The Stans have been very receptive to Chinese diplomatic and economic cooperation. This bothers Russia, but not to the extent that threats are being made, as was the case with the former imperial provinces to the west. The Stans also have a problem with never having been democracies. When the Russians conquered them in the 19th century, the local governments were monarchies or tribes. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, former Soviet officials held elections and manipulated the vote to get themselves elected president for life. But many people in the Stans want clean government and democracy, as well as continued independence from Russia. China is no help with that because the Chinese prefer dictators.
In the Caucasus Georgia still seeks closer ties with the West. Armenia, because of disputes with Azerbaijan and long-term fear of Turkey, remains a close ally of Russia. Azerbaijan maintains good relations with Russia mainly because Iran claims Azerbaijan was a lost province stolen by Russia in the 19th century.
Russia was quite open about wanting to rebuild the old Tsarist Empire that the communists managed to lose in 1991 when the Soviet Union came apart and half the population of that empire went off and formed 14 new countries. Russia proposed things like customs unions, military cooperation and rebuilding the old Soviet air defense system that used to defend everyone in the empire. There’s been some progress, but most of the 14 nations want nothing to do with Russia.
Meanwhile Russia has to face the fact that, when the Soviet Union broke up, half the population enthusiastically went to the 14 new countries and most of those people were quite pleased with the demise of the Soviet Union. Thus if you asked all citizens of the former Soviet Union what they thought of the breakup, you would find that most had no regrets. That’s because the Soviet Union was basically the Russian Empire cobbled together by the old czarist monarchy over more than two centuries of conquest and expansion.
In the Soviet Union more than half the population felt like conquered people, not part of any union. The Soviet Union dissolved quickly in 1990-91 because over half the population really wanted it to happen and had wanted it for a long time. Moreover many ethnic Russians were tired of supporting a lot of the less affluent conquered people and were fed up with the economic failures of communism. The former Soviet Union citizens who regret the breakup tend to be older people who were disillusioned at how corruption and bad leadership made post-Soviet life less wonderful than was expected.
The younger people are more realistic, never having lived as adults in the Soviet Union and intimately familiar with the fact that freedom isn’t free and democracy is difficult. For younger Russians there are more economic opportunities than under communism. While Russia lost half its population when the Soviet Union broke up, it hung on to most of the valuable natural resources like oil and natural gas. While the post-Soviet government was initially reluctant to increase state supplied pensions, which were low during the Soviet period because there was little to spend it on and the state supplied housing and some health care, pensions did eventually increase. But not as much as the economy grew and the working Russians were obviously doing better than the pensioners who had grown up under communism. In Soviet times that meant there was little economic opportunity and most everyone was equally poor. The old-timers never got used to the post 1991 changes and most would prefer the communists to come back. That may continue for decades, despite the Russian defeats and losses in Ukraine.
I will reserve my lividity until I hear the rest of the story on DNI. Such "Orange Man Bad" stories usually leave out 2/3 of the facts so I'll wait for those.
WJ: Hey, remember, I was for that governor from Florida and by the time the primaries got to Texas the issue had been decided without me. I have never been able to understand his friendliness with Russia, the Russia Hoax not withstanding.
Yeah, I was for the governor from South Carolina. I would have voted for the Florida one, too, in the primary, had it been between him and You Know Whom. I get that.
That said, I have zero attachment to the idea that one should defend one's party when they are in the wrong.
Absolutely zero.
Support, yes, if only because the other guys are worse. Defend, well, I try to explain when I can what the thought process is, and sometimes it's one of several valid points of view.
The Pentagon just announced that it is dropping 180 faiths from those recognized by the military, leaving only 31; Military(dot)com has the full story for those interested. Those dropped include some for which there are currently active-duty chaplains. And yes, mine was among those dropped.
I can see that happening, as Biden's surrogates went way over the deep edge on so many things, but I know Jessica's faith (she has some stuff for it my brother collected, he collected stuff from dozens of religions) and it seems to be one of the top 30. I suspect that it was the fundamentalists who insisted on hammering it before it grows.
Since early May, Ukraine has been using a new weapon, the Morrigan drone, to destroy 120 trucks on the R280 highway that supports Russian forces in Crimea and Zaparosiya. The Morrigan is about 1.5 meters wide and long, but is operator controlled without a wire or fiber optic cable. It has a range of at least 100km. It can be launched from a rail with a catapult. The warhead is about 5kg, and has been seen to kill tanks by hitting the engine deck. It has been able to hit air defense systems. The weapon is used by the Ukraine 412th Nemasis brigade.
In the ongoing saga of the U.S.S. Nimitz, the story continues…
The U.S. Navy delayed the decommissioning of the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68) to March 2027 to ensure the fleet maintains its legally mandated minimum of 11 operational aircraft carriers.
The next Ford-class aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), was delayed. Its delivery was pushed back to March 2027 to allow for further testing and certification of its Advanced Arresting Gear and Advanced Weapons Elevators.
Retiring the Nimitz on her original schedule would have temporarily dropped the Navy to 10 active carriers. Federal law (10 U.S.C. § 5062) requires the U.S. to maintain a force of at least 11 carriers, forcing the Navy to extend her service to bridge the gap.
Another factor in the decision to retain the Nimitz in active service is the current construction SNAFU, Major naval shipyards are overextended, further complicating the transition and creating backlogs for fleet maintenance.
The John F. Kennedy DelaysTimeline Shift: The CVN-79 was initially slated for an earlier handover, but structural and technological integrations forced the schedule to slip from July 2025 to 2027.
The delay was primarily driven by the need to complete certification of the ship's brand-new Advanced Arresting Gear and Weapons Elevators.Current Status: The carrier successfully completed its initial builder's sea trials in early 2026, but the additional time is being utilized to finalize outfitting and prepare it for full service.
A interesting historical note:
The longest serving U.S. Navy ship record holder was the U.S.s. Enterprise, CVN-65. 51 years.(note: this honor ignores the sailing Frigate U.S.S. Constitution, that last served as the Flagship of united States Atlantic Fleet during World War 2.)
The U.S.S. Nimitz, CVN-68, has now served longer than the Enterprise, by some seven days at the time the article was posted to the USNIP (United States Naval Institute Proceedings).
As was reported before, the Nimitz is now scheduled to be an active Aircraft Carrier in the fleet throughout 2027, pending the completion of the U.S.S. John Kennedy (CVN-79).
My question is why retire a CVN when apparently there is life lift on the hull? Heck, us the one closest for training...
The challenge is she's nuclear. And her reactors were already refilled at her previous RCOH over 25 years ago. Her nuclear fuel is quite depleted at this point and only generates perhaps 30-50% of the power of her fully fueled state. So that affects steam generation, sustained speed, top speed, and catapult usage. She can definitely still move and operate, but in a degraded mode that degrades further with more usage.
She'd need another RCOH or something like it to refuel her reactors and replace components that wear due to extended particle bombardment and heating. And that takes as long as 4-5 years and is designed to extend life for 25 more years. Nimitz are really designed for the initial fueling + 1xRCOH for about 50 years of total life. None has been RCOHed a 2nd time.
So Nimitz would really need something like a "mini-RCOH" to extend her for a shorter period of time. But you'd still need to do reactor work, and that takes a lot of time, money, and nuclear yard space. And the nuclear shipyards are all oversubscribed with other nuclear work based upon scheduling.
--Mike
Mike, how useful is it in the limited power state. could it still operate F 35s or could it become a drone operator of some type to fill in in a less of a threat area. One question I guess would it be a drain on manning resources, what size of a crew would be needed to operate it in a limited role.
And that is not the end of the story.
There are the other Nimitz Class carriers that are all approaching the same point in life cycle.
The Navy has already tried to moth ball the U.S.S. Truman ,(Twice!) and been forced to put her back into service.
The other side of the story is that no one in congress wants to see a stop or hiatus in ship production because of the unions.
Try telling the shipyard unions that the pay checks will go away, personally, I wouldn’t recommend doing it in person.
There are a variety of knobs that an aging CVN can tune in to accomodate limited engineering power (from fuel depletion, malfunction, or battle damage) while still operating aircraft:
- adjust catapult pressure up
- accept lower pace of catapult steam replenishment
- accept a lower overall pace of launch
- accept lower CVN speed contributing to wind over deck (WOD)
- only launch heavier aircraft loads when favorable weather provides higher WOD naturally
- reduce aircraft fuel or ordnance load to lower takeoff weight
- refuel aircraft via tankers more aggressively after launch
- accept shorter aircraft range
- have aircraft apply more power during launch, like using afterburner (if available) where a plane might normally launch at full mil
- do not embark aircraft that are mathematically more difficult to launch or trap
- reduce safety margins for reserve trap fuel (trick or treat)
- jettison unused ordnance more aggressively to lower trap weight
- accept lower ship's service electrical power (critical systems only) to divert more power to propulsion or catapults
It's not so much a "can or can't" it's just about shifting the launch math as the CVN's ability to make steam and sprint is incrementally reduced. A degraded CVN could most likely launch any normally embarked aircraft, but they might be of limited load and range, with reduced safety margins and lower overall tempo.
I don't think a degraded CVN would reduce base crew that much if at all, as you still need crew to run and maintain all the ships systems. On a 50 year old ship you could even make the case that a full crew is even more necessary to keep up with ongoing, routine maintenance and repair work.
If overall aircraft tempo is lowered then it might make sense to only embark a partial air group to match up with that. Then some of the air and maintenance crews might not be needed.
--Mike
Ukraine is now mounting 57mm and 80mm unguided rockets on some of their drones. The initial use was to attack the ground machinegun posts that Russia spreads along major highways to shoot down drones. Use has expanded however to include magnifying attacks on oil refineries by having drones fire the small rockets before crashing into the refinery with the main warhead. They have also used the rockets against air defense units. Some drones now have no warhead, instead carrying several rockets, firing them, then returning to base to be used again.
With the latest attacks between Lebanon, Israel and Iran...
.... it seems President Trump is unhappy with both sides, so whats the chance the US and Iran sign a deal - and the Israeli's are left out of it - and they both then need to sign a seperate deal to resolve that conflict?
Trump would possibly sign a deal that didn't bind Israel but Iran would not do that.
Finishing my thoughts on the rocket firing drones. The rockets are unguided and firing them at a machinegun post from 500m has a probability of a kill of about 30%, but a probability of "get them to stop shooting for a minute or two" of about 95%.
Ukraine is now using swarms of drones of mixed types, with recon drones to scout the path, rocket firing drones to suppress air defense, and heavy impact drones to go deep and hit real targets.
The ceasefire collapsed this weekend.
1. Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel. That's just what they do. They're on a mission from God and no agreement to stop doing it is valid.
2. Israel responded with attacks on Hezbollah targets near Beirut. This seems to be Israel's favorite sport of "whack a mole".
3. Iran said that Israel broke the ceasefire, ignoring the fact that Hezbollah broke it first, because, hey, Hezbollah has a God-Given right to attack Israel.
4. The Houtis fired a missile at Israel. Iran fired waves of missiles at Israel. After all, Israel broke the ceasefire and the rockets Hezbollah fired just aren't an issue.
5. Israel responded with air strikes on Iran, including the flattening of a petrochemical plant.
6. Trump is shaking his head and still has the fantasy that he can convince an angry housecat to become a complacent doggie.
Lebanon
To be fair - I doubt anyone knows 'who fired first' recently- and the israeli's never said they was part of the Ceasefire anyway and have been pushing north into Lebanon and expanding their 'Economic/Protection/General Land grab' area.
Pluus the Israeli's killed 3 Lebanesse soliders I think it was Friday or Saturday.
So 'who' started the first attacks, Jury I thinks out on that decision?
On perhaps more relevant issues - not sure what the UK needs to fix next : -
Army - Ajax AFV's which was supposted tbe be fixed from major ploblems 3 year ago - aren't it seems. It seems the vibrations for the crew are still there.
Navy - The 5 current Astute Nuclear Attack Submarines are in in port - and best guess as it said MoD hasn't said why - is that they are 'broken' (which probably covers a wide variety of problems 
). (and thats on top of having to 'rent' a German Ship to be the UK Flagship for the UK conbtribiion to a NATO Naval Group).
RAF - Well, with no major problems (at the momeent) - I bet their budget will be cut!!
Not sure what the MoD will try and fix first....