China Stockpiles For Survival
June 4, 2026: China is stockpiling food, oil, coal and essential raw materials to sustain the population and the military in the event of a war with the Americans. One of the problems with stockpiling petroleum is that the Americans have developed increasingly effective methods to sanction Russian petroleum exports. China depends on Persian Gulf oil which is now blocked by the war with Israel and the Americans. In the event of a war over Taiwan, the Americans, or the Indonesians by themselves, could easily shut down the Persian Gulf to China oil route. China and Iran have been economic and military allies for decades. In response, the Americans have imposed several rounds of economic sanctions against both countries.
The growing Chinese stockpiles are meant to keep the Chinese economy and military operational long enough to negotiate an end to the war. Currently China imports about 75 percent of the oil and nearly half the natural gas it requires. Protecting these stockpiles is difficult and expensive. The Americans have non-nuclear ballistic missiles that can be launched from cargo aircraft and strike targets deep inside China and destroy them even if they are underground. Another problem with any war with America is that the United States is self-sufficient in nearly everything, including rare earths. America is an oil and natural gas exporter and far more difficult for China to attack economically than the other way around.
Chinese plans for economic survival during wartime are vague and disjointed and slogging, not walking or running, towards their objectives. This is another reason why China does not want a war with the Americans because the Americas and Europe purchase most Chinese exports. Disrupting that commerce would have long-term implications since most of these Chinese customers would seek other suppliers and many of those suppliers would remain after the war ended.
Another factor to consider is that the Americans have a lot more experience than China in managing military stockpiles that are used in wartime. The Americans have a lot of combat experience while China has very little.
Over the last decade the America Army continues its efforts to rebuild its stockpiles of ammunition and equipment for use against a large, well-equipped enemy force in a war. These stockpiles are also referred to as the War Reserves that consist of large quantities of munitions and spares stockpiled to keep the troops supplied during the initial month or so of a war. These stockpiles must contain the most useful munitions and other supplies and be positioned so they can be moved to the combat zone as quickly, and efficiently as possible. Without adequate logistics, the right supplies delivered in time, wars or at least battles, are often lost early and often.
The nature of these war reserves has changed a lot since the 1990s. For one thing, the widespread use of GPS guided shells and rockets since the late 1990s has led to most artillery being retired. One guided shell or rocket can do the work of dozens of unguided projectiles. The validity of this was proven time and again while fighting Islamic terrorists since 2001. This included 2016-18 battles against ISIL/Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant where the Islamic terrorists were defending urban areas the same way a conventional force would, but smart shells and rockets were used effectively and frequently rather than the older tactic of using far more unguided shells and rockets. In both cases, the urban areas are destroyed but, with guided projectiles, it is done with more precision and that enables the friendly ground forces to advance more rapidly and with fewer casualties than in the past. Because of the battles with ISIL in Iraq and Syria, the effectiveness of fewer guided projectiles replacing many more unguided ones was proven and ammunition stockpiles could be adjusted accordingly.
By 2020 the emphasis switched to GMLRS/GPS guided 227mm rockets and upgrades for the longer range 600mm ATACMS guided rocket. For 2020 the army ordered 10,193 GMLRS rockets versus 8,101 in 2019 and 6,936 in 2018. In that time the Army discovered that it was easier to use the longer range, 70 kilometers or more, GMLRS than trying to develop longer range artillery. The need here was to match longer range artillery developed and put in service by Russia and China. Even with longer barrels and rocket assisted shells artillery could not reach as far as GMLRS. Moreover, jamming the GPS signal is a less effective enemy option with the much improved microchip based INS/Inertial Guidance System long used as a less accurate backup in weapons using GPS for projectile guidance. The new INS is nearly as accurate as GPS and if you have to be sure, fire two or three GMLRS at the same target. That works, especially since INS cannot be jammed.
There is still a need for guided and unguided 155mm artillery shells. To provide choice the army has been ordering many more of the PGK/Projectile Guidance Kit 155mm fuze. The PGK fuze turns an unguided 155mm shell into a GPS/INS guided one. These were found to be exceptionally useful in Syria and Iraq and, in mid-2017, the American army ordered thousands of PGK fuzes in order to establish a large stockpile. The army still uses unguided artillery shells for situations that don’t require precise accuracy for each shell, but the PGK provides options that can be implemented quickly to turn any dumb shell into a smart one.
Before 2008, as the war began to wind down in Iraq, there were warnings that stockpiles and war reserves were being allowed to shrink to dangerously low levels. In early 2016 American military leaders went public about how their complaints about smart bomb and missile shortages were being ignored. In 2015 over 25,000 smart bombs and missiles were used by American and allied warplanes operating over Iraq and Syria. Nearly all weapons were supplied by American firms but the American politicians and military leaders couldn’t agree on how to get the money to replace bombs being taken from the war reserve stocks.
This is not a new problem. It was a major and widespread problem in 2011 when NATO warplanes provided air support for Libyan rebels. In the aftermath of the 2011 campaign NATO countries noted the importance of smart bombs and guided missiles, and the tendency of European nations to maintain meager stocks of these and many other munitions and spare parts for the aircraft that deliver them. NATO nations did not start acquiring smart bombs until after the Cold War ended, about the same time their procurement budgets were cut sharply. European defense spending continues to shrink, and war reserve stocks are still not a high priority. In Europe, the attitude seemed to be that the Americans would be able to supply smart bombs in a crisis. For a long time that was the case, but with the Americans now running down their own war reserves and deadlocked over what to do about that, which is usually not much, American allies become anxious.
In 2011 the situation was made worse by the fact that the NATO air forces delivering most of the bombs in Libya had already used many of them in Afghanistan over the previous few years. The now chastised NATO air forces are still trying to deal with the 2011 mess and now they find that their safety net, dependable emergency deliveries from American war reserves, is rapidly disappearing or no longer as available as in the past.
All this was yet another reminder that cutting corners in maintaining war reserve stocks is always a false economy. But smart bombs and missiles are expensive. About 30 percent of the cost of the NATO Libya operation was for these high-tech weapons, with the rest of the expense being operational costs including fuel, spare parts, and personnel expenses. But if you don’t have the smart bombs to deliver there is no action, except for the imaginative stories conjured by many political and military leaders to shift the blame onto someone else.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Special Operations: SOCOM Uses Ukrainian Anti-Ship Drone
June 4, 2026: Last month, in the Philippines, SOCOM/Special Operations Command operators used an American-made naval drone against a decommissioned commercial vessel. The U.S. 1st Special Forces Group has been active in the northernmost islands of the Philippines. The Batanes islands are the northernmost Filipino province 162 kilometers north of Luzon Island and 190 kilometers south of Taiwan.
Because of this proximity to a potential warzone, American and Filipino forces are increasingly training in this area. The Philippines is also developing plans for handling an influx of Taiwanese refugees if China does attack
The American and Filipino forces are using Ukrainian drone designs like the Magura and the American ANAFI USA drone, which is made with American components for the American military. The drone is dust and rain-resistant and carries day and infrared and visible cameras. Weighing only 1.8 kg, the drone can remain airborne for 30 minutes.
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 drones equipped with satellite communications so operators anywhere in the world can control them. These drones can be launched at sea and sent 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.
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 and have shot down Russian fighter-bombers and helicopters. 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 a long-range attack at the distant naval base at Novorossiysk on Russia’s Black Sea eastern coast, 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. Ukraine builds 96 percent of its drones in Ukrainian factories. The other four percent are sent by NATO countries.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Attrition: North Korea Demands Suicide
June 2, 2026: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un issued an order for wounded soldiers to commit suicide to avoid capture by the Ukrainians. Only about a hundred North Korean soldiers, most of them wounded, have been captured by the Ukrainian forces. South Korea has offered to take in these North Korea soldiers and enable them to settle in South Korea. Not all captured North Korean soldiers want to live in South Korea, because they have families back in North Korea that would be punished.
The Choson inmin gun has been the North Korean military since 1948. During the subsequent 78 years, the North Korean forces have had their ups and downs. Currently 14,000 North Korea soldiers are fighting alongside Russian troops in Ukraine. So far 43 percent of these soldiers have been killed, wounded or missing.
North Korea has contributed substantial quantities of weapons, munitions and personnel to the Russian war effort in Ukraine. The North Koreans are well paid for this and the Russians also offered assistance developing ballistic missiles, air defense systems, warplanes, outfitting North Korea's new warships and much else.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Morale: Pay For Slay Billions
June 2, 2026: During the last fifteen years the Palestinian Authority has spent over $5 billion on pay-for-slay – providing death benefits to the families of Arabs who are imprisoned or die killing, or trying to kill, Jews. Last year the Americans threatened to halt $336 million in aid to the PA/Palestinian Authority if the Palestinians did not halt their Pay for Slay program. Recent payments were substantial, with some Palestinian terrorists receiving over a million dollars. The most recent payment totaled $142 million for 738 Palestinian terrorists. That averages $193,000 per terrorist.
In 2025 the PA continued using its Pay for Slay program to reward Palestinian terrorists. Since October 2023, the PA declared nearly 10,000 imprisoned Palestinian and Hamas terrorists as eligible for Pay for Slay money. The PA also recognized an additional 39,000 families of dead terrorists as eligible for Pay for Slay payments. While the PA agreed to the American demands, it is believed that the PA would seek to find a way to make the payments anyway.
The Palestinians responded by establishing a foundation to handle the money. The foundation is still run by Palestinians who simply deny any involvement with the Pay for Slay effort. The foundation purportedly dispenses money to needy Palestinians, but all of them just happen to be needy terrorists. The Americans have been through this before, and this time the PA deceptions may not work.
The PA has long used foreign aid money to run its pay-for-slay program. Since the 1970s, the PA has diverted nearly half a billion dollars in foreign aid to pay Palestinian terrorists for killing Israeli civilians and soldiers. There is an elaborate system for paying the families of dead Palestinian terrorists as well as lesser payments for those imprisoned for attacks on Israelis.
Foreign donors eventually learned of this program, which used money donated for the welfare of Palestinian civilians. Donors tried to enforce rules prohibiting use of cash for pay-for-slay programs. The PA keeps finding ways to circumvent these restrictions and continue making terrorism profitable for Palestinians. PA leaders take a portion of the aid for themselves as a reward for continuing to deceive foreign donors.
In 2019, the Palestinian Fatah government threatened to cause an economic catastrophe by refusing partial payments from Israel and donor nations unless everyone stopped deducting the money Fatah spends on supporting and encouraging terrorist activity. In 2018, Israel passed a law to deduct Pay for Slay payments from the $130 million a month it collects in taxes and fees for the Palestinians in the West Bank. Despite that, Fatah paid over $20 million to Palestinian terrorists in prison or to their families for deceased terrorists. The Americans had already enacted a similar law and was deducting a similar amount from the $300 million it currently gives to the West Bank Palestinians. Other foreign donors have taken similar measures.
Fatah complains that America, Israel, and other donors are being unfair. Yet it is no secret that many Palestinians become terrorists because they are attracted to the financial rewards, which are considerable for many impoverished Palestinians impoverished by Fatah corruption and incompetence. Palestinians who are jailed, injured, or killed while trying to kill Israelis receive large payments from Fatah. For example, families of dead terrorists get an immediate payment of $1,700 from Fatah plus monthly payments for the life of the immediate family. These monthly payments consist of $400 to over $1,000 depending on the number of wives and children and can make a family relatively affluent and open new opportunities, like enough cash to afford a people smuggler who can get one or more family members to the West. There is also a bonus of $86 a month if you are a legal resident of Israel and a similar monthly bonus if you were a resident of Jerusalem. Fatah currently pays about $200 million a year to the families.
Monthly payments to jailed Palestinians vary according to how long they have been in jail, how many dependents they have, and so on. There are also bonuses for how many Israelis the prisoner killed or injured. Some of these convicts get over $50,000 a year. Fatah currently spends nearly $200 million a year to reward over 6,000 jailed terrorists. Fatah considers this payment program a success even though hundreds of Palestinians have died in the Fatah-promoted violence. These attacks also left a growing number of Israelis dead, and for Fatah that is political gold as far as Arab language media is concerned.
With this approach, Fatah and Hamas together currently spend over $400 million a year to make murder economically attractive to many young Palestinians. Most of it comes from Fatah, although Hamas is trying to make more payments to Palestinians in the West Bank who support Hamas and attack Israelis in the name of Hamas. The Arab language media throughout the Middle East take for granted that these payments are just and necessary for the war against Israel.
In response to the current American and Israeli efforts to penalize Fatah for what is spent to encourage terror attacks, Fatah made it clear it would not halt payments to families for dead or jailed terrorists. Instead, it cut pay to Palestinians who worked for the West Bank government. But by refusing foreign aid money still being offered, Fatah caused shortages of food and other necessities in the West Bank. The ensuing Palestinian outrage and resulting damage were blamed on the efforts to halt pay-for-slay terrorism support.
Fatah is pleading with Russia and Arab oil states to help them out. Russia is broke and prefers to be on good terms with Israel. The Arab oil states are fed up with the Palestinian preference for self-destructive behavior. When the PA cannot obtain the needed Pay for Slay cash from the usual sources, it records missed payments as debts that must eventually be paid. Pay for Slay is an essential PA program because it brings in more Palestinian men willing to die for money. Families receiving the money honor their dead benefactors for a long time.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 04:04 pm: Edit

END OF FYEO POSTS

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 09:02 pm: Edit

A couple of posts have been made to youtube concerning rail gun tech and the BBGN class hull.

Some of the missing information that we were discussing here some time ago has now been released.

The Navy rail gun project was cancelled in 2021 for three reasons:

1. Barrel wear, the navy demanded a high rate of fire and limited maintenance for the rail gun project. Tungsten projectiles (solid metal) so no proximity fuses, radar or electronics. The rail gun propelled the projectile at Mach 7 speed, and all hits were kinetic energy impacts.

Barrel life was measured at 10 to 12shots, whereupon further shots damaged the barrel to the point the gun was inoperable.

2. The rail gun required both a huge electric charge, and cooling of the infrastructure of the rail gun to prevent the system overheating. No ship, including the gas turbine powered burke class destroyers had the needed electrical capacity to power the rail gun as well as the cryogenic requirement to protect the rail gun system. (Associated issue was even if some how the power issue could be resolved, the fuel required by a gas turbine ship would necessarily require a tanker (or more) to be in close proximity as the destroyers would need constant refueling in combat to maintain combat readiness. Killing tankers is easier than killing destroyers, done at the right time, the Burke class destroyers could literally be run out of gas.

3. Back in 2021 there was no need to adopt an expensive rail gun as existing missiles were able to provide protection against known threats that existed then. Remember, this is before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.)

What was posted to YouTube this week included:

1. The barrel decay problem of destroying the railgun was solved by the company General Atomics, builder of the EMALS system due to the EMALs catapult had the same exact problem in that repeated use damaged the EMALs in the same way the railgun was destroyed. Yes, there were other problems with EMALs, but tnis part addressed the railgun issue. I stead of requiring a rebuild every 10 shots, no ceiling for railguns has been established. This is why the Rail gun that was cancelled in 2021 has been hauled out of storage and is conducting a near continuous operation to determine just whatthe new limits are. Apparently 200 shots resulted in no measurable damage to the railgun… tests continue.

2. The solution to #2 appears to be the BBGN (u.s.s. Defiant) in that its large enough to carry the same nuclear power plant as the Ford Class CVN, and provides sufficient electrical energy to power the ships movement, power the electronics (fire control, command and radar) as well as the cryogenic cooling system required by the railgun. (Another side issue, missiles are carried on board navy ships in groups of cells, not reloadable at sea. Each missile, depending on type or model, costs in excess of $4 million dollars USD$

The tungsten projectile is said to cost $35,000 each, and a 35,000 ton ship as proposed could carry hundreds of inert projectiles as opposed to a low finite number of missiles (the latest Chinese destroyer is expected to carry 110-120. Missiles (depending on mission.), a Flight 3 Burke class somewhat less, again depending on whether it is assigned an anti Air defense, anti Submarine mission, or anti Mine warfare).

This also explains why the navy wants up to 25+ BBGN ships. They would have the direct fire power to defeat low cost cheap drone swarms without having to fie off hundreds of expensive missiles.

Which takes us to #3, the no mission problem.

The Russian Ukraine war proves that swarm attacks by cheap drones is both effective and deadly.

A fleet of ships equipped with railguns can defeat both air and surface drone swarms,

The mission is now evident, is the BBGN the correct size and configuration to complete it?

Dunno… but I expect that there be a lot of discussion.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 10:23 pm: Edit

When I come back in my next life I will be sure to look up in YouTube the videos about what happened to the battleship project. There was a whole series of gigantic battleship designs for the USN in the 1920s as Senator Tillman was probing the navy to see what the most ridiculous thing they could design would be.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 11:08 pm: Edit

You certainly don't need something as powerful and complex as a rail gun to shoot down drones. There are many very simple, inexpensive conventional gun systems that can make Swiss cheese out of drones fairly easily, with minimal power requirements.

And in a anti-ship role, its puzzling to me what the value of a rail gun is? As I've read the ranges can be around 60-100nm. That's quite close for modern warfare. Not sure the rail gun equipped ship would close the range often enough to use the weapon system effectively?

--Mike

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 12:05 am: Edit

Jeff's citation of uhh... YouTube... notwithstanding, I'm not convinced the durability issue really has been solved. Speaking purely hypothetically, if - someone - wanted to make railgun technology appear to be more viable than it currently is (in order to... I don't know... get more funding, maybe?), they might conduct a series of low power tests, shooing off hundreds of rounds, but at a power setting well below the railgun's nominal rated power. This would put enormously less strain on the gun than the same number of shots at full power and would allow the testers to claim - truthfully but misleadingly - that they had fired off hundreds of rounds with no degradation to the gun.

Timing of the shots would also matter a great deal. Two full power shots fired as fast as it is physically possible to reload and recharge the railgun will stress the system a lot more than two full power shots fired several minutes or even hours apart.

I am not aware that any information has yet been made public about the specifics of the testing protocols. That can plausibly be defended as being for security reasons. But it does also provide reasons to at least take claims that all issues with railgun durability have been "solved", with a grain or two of salt, even if... YouTube... implies otherwise.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 04:13 am: Edit

Ukraine has started testing the FP7X anti-missile which supposedly can do anything a Patriot can do for one quarter of its cost.

The basic FP7 is a mid-range ballistic missile which has had a couple of test flights. It can supposedly hit Moscow.

Self -producing such key weapons puts Ukraine in a position to ignore the US as a source of arms. In a post war world, many countries are interested in buying big stocks of FP7 and FP7X.
THE MILITARY SHOW, YouTube

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 04:19 am: Edit

Alan, be nice to YouTube, I’m off to watch “return of the napalm” again….

Ships descend with roaring guns above
Lord the flags are draped in stars so bright
The darkness hides beneath these endless leaves,
Woo They’ll never guess how far we fight.
Watch the jungle lure you in.
Ooooh, it’s a trap, it’s a trap, rifles in the trees…

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 07:36 am: Edit

Reports suggest that a Saronic Corsair drone boat was used as part of the successful operation to rescue the downed AH-64 crew. It's good to see USN make more actual productive use of drones, where so many of their "drone" projects are somewhere between fanciful and farcical.

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 09:35 am: Edit

The new Secretary of the Navy has been quoted by the U.S.N.I.P.(united states naval institute proceedings) as to the changes to the proposed fiscal year budget proposal for 2027.

The five year plan includes commissioning the U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-80), and laying down the U.S.S. Doris Miller (CVN-81).

It includes pre funding for long lead time components for additional aircraft carriers (production of aircraft carriers has been slowed down to 1 every four years.)

The first three BBGN battleships are tentatively scheduled to be included in fiscal years 2028, 2029 and 2030.

Note:this is still just a proposal at this point.

Congress has not approved any federal budget that includes the U.S.S. Defiant class battleships.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Leadership: Russian Cossacks Fight For Ukraine
June 10, 2026: For centuries, Cossacks were mounted warriors living on the fringes of the expanding Russian empire. Most of them were Russian but, in southern Russia, the region known as Ukraine also produced Cossacks, which fought nations to the west like Poland and Turks and Tartars to the south and east. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian Cossacks have been used to augment the police force while many joined the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Over the last year a growing number of Russian Cossacks have been uniting with Ukrainian Cossacks to oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Earlier Russia, desperate to find more manpower to reinforce their troops in Ukraine, turned to its small Cossack population. Russia made a deal with the Cossack leadership to persuade the millions of Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks living in Russia to support the Russian war effort in Ukraine. Prior to 2024 Russia had not sought to recruit Cossacks. This was part of an effort to maintain and improve good relations with Cossacks in Russia. By the end of 2024 over 50,000 Cossacks had served in the Russian forces in Ukraine or the forces gathered to push Ukrainian forces out of Russia’s Kursk province. The Ukrainians entered Kursk in August. Russia also used 12,000 North Korean mercenaries for its Kursk counterattack.
Russia has not tried to involuntarily conscript Cossacks into its army as that could antagonize Cossacks in general and possibly cause loyalty problems with Ukrainian Cossacks living in Russia. There are over five million Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks living in different parts of Russia. Both Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks consider themselves Cossacks first. Russian officials understand that and since late 2023 have persuaded over 20,000 Cossacks to fight in Ukraine. Russia hoped to recruit more because Russia was running out of Russian soldiers. The Cossacks and their leaders were aware of the high Russian casualty rate in Ukraine. That made it difficult to persuade more Cossacks to fight in Ukraine.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Ukrainian response was Cossack in the way Cossack tactics were used successfully against the Russian invaders. These 21st Century Ukrainian Cossacks performed like the first Cossacks did 500 years ago, traveling light and using whatever weapons they could carry and use on foot or on horseback. The 2022 Ukrainian used pickup trucks and cars for transport and a lot of NATO supplied anti-tank weapons to supplement Ukrainian-made ones.
The original Cossacks were most effective at raiding and restricting the movements and capabilities of a larger force. Cossacks would raid supply columns and force the enemy to use more troops for guard duty and larger reconnaissance patrols. Cossacks could weaken a larger force and reduce its offensive capabilities.
It’s not surprising that these modern Cossacks would emerge in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion. This sort of speedy improvisation by a largely recent volunteer force of civilians is one reason the Russians have been losing. The Ukrainians know what they are fighting for while most of the Russian troops who initially invaded were unaware they were invading Ukraine until hastily organized and armed Ukrainians began ambushing them with effective anti-tank weapons and superior tactics and communications. Initially most Russian troops were unsure why they are invading Ukraine while the Ukrainians were defending themselves any way they could. Subsequently Russia tried to create its own Cossack force. That effort failed as most Russian and Ukrainian Cossacks agreed that Russia was the enemy in Ukraine and to all Cossacks.
Such neo-Cossacks, in the form of small, mobile motorized forces, were first developed by the British during World War II in North Africa. German and Italian forces established airfields and supply storage sites out in the desert that were lightly guarded because any ground force would be spotted from the air before it got near. To get around that Britain developed the LRDG/Long Range Desert Group consisting of small units of a dozen or so men in wheeled vehicles modified for off-road use in desert terrain. The troops were volunteers trained to use these vehicles and navigate in the desert. While raids on remote airfields and supply depots were the most dramatic operations, the most valuable role of the LRDG was collecting information on enemy strength, dispositions and movements. This often involved monitoring enemy traffic on the coastal roads, which were the primary traffic route in North Africa. Out of this came the British SAS/Special Air Service commandos and the maritime version, the SBS/Special Boat Service. After World War II other nations based their special operations forces on the British model.
American Special Forces and similar commando groups in other NATO countries are also able to operate in the Cossack fashion and regularly train that way based on the experience of the Ukrainian Cossacks. While NATO has donated over $200 billion military and economic aid to Ukraine, the Ukrainians have shared their combat experiences with NATO as well as details of new weapons Ukrainians have designed and built. The war in Ukraine is the first war between technological equals since World War II. That’s over 60 years with much change in weapons or tactics. Now the war in Ukraine has revolutionized, in just four years, how wars are fought and established the parameters for 21st Century warfare.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Russia Enters A Time Of Troubles
June 10, 2026: Russia is currently entering a new Time of Troubles, similar to the fifteen years of chaos in Russia 500 years ago. The current version is similar in that the major supporters of Vladimir Puttin and the war in Ukraine have started backing away from the war. Public opinion is increasingly against the war and hostile to allowing their sons and brothers to be recruited into the army to die uselessly. Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s assistants, advisors and staff are hiding or downplaying what is actually happening with the economy plus, in the Ukraine war, the growing Ukrainian victories and the plummeting morale of Russian soldiers. Then there are the growing number, currently sixteen, of Russian generals killed or assassinated within Russia since 2022. Some of these losses were blamed on feuds and disagreements within the military.
Within the ranks, desertions are up and instances of Russian suicides among distraught solders more frequent. Families of soldiers complain that they are having problems getting the corpses of their sons for burial. Now all parents often receive is their child’s head. The war is now in its fifth year with the Russians losing and Ukrainian forces regaining territory that cost Russia over 1.3 million casualties to conquer.
After fighting a war against Ukraine longer than it took the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis, Russia is confronted with a cascade of worsening military, economic, and political problems. The Russian President chooses to deal with these problems in a style amazingly evocative of the last years of the Soviet Union. Back during the 1941-45 Great Patriotic War, few errors were acknowledged and these were dealt with by shooting unsuccessful officers in order to inspire the others. Russian President Vladimir Putin maintains power by using long-time associates to run the FSB/Federal Security Service, the MFA/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Rostec, the nation’s major manufacturer of weapons and military equipment.
Currently, what matters most to Russian civilians is the deplorable state of the economy. After four years of spending too much on the military, the economy is distorted and unable to produce what the Russian people want and need. Before the war military spending was 4.3 percent of GDP. In 2022 the GDP was $1.8 trillion, and 4.5 percent was military spending. In 2023 it declined to $1.7 trillion, 5 percent military and in 2024 grew to $1.75 trillion, 5.2 percent military. Last year it was $1.8 trillion, 5.3 percent military and this year is expected to reach $1.85 trillion, 5.4 percent military. The stagnant GDP growth is due to the economic sanctions imposed by NATO nations and the economic distortions caused by all the military production that pushed aside manufacturing of commercial and industrial items.
Russia has descended into a stubborn recession while Putin refuses to reduce federal expenditures as he expects oil revenue to increase because of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. This plan isn’t working due to constant Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil ports and refineries.
And then there is the internet slowdown and shutdown. This created enormous public outrage. The government insists these limitations are needed to block terrorist communications but clearly does not grasp the economic costs of rolling back digitalization, which has become crucial for running a business, principally in Moscow. Bloggers may be a tiny minority in the complex urban social organization, but their outraged voices have a major impact
The emotional exhaustion caused by the Ukraine War is creating a desire for change among Russians. These sentiments are heightened by diminished prospects of a peace deal, which has apparently slid down in the list of American priorities. The primary proposal of Russia’s partisan reporters is to muster greater resources to turn the tide in stalemated battles. Putin is unwilling to incur the economic and political costs of such an escalation. Putin has stopped meeting with senior generals and Defense Ministry officials, who are taught to keep creating accounts of victorious advances. Civilians soon learn that these victories were undone by victorious Ukrainian drone warfare as reported on the internet and social media. That is why Putin wants to curb the use of the internet and social media in Russia.
Most Russians’ appeals to Putin are begging rather than demanding. Public anger is aimed at his ministers, generals, and governors who are purportedly not telling him the whole truth about increasing problems. Attempts to attract the benign attention of the leader are typical in autocratic political culture, which in Russia is reinforced by a long monarchist tradition. Putin may find comfort in this still solid credit of public confidence, but must worry about the next phase, his loyal subjects’ finding that he has little power to address their troubles and does not really want to hear about them. Putin’s reading of Russian history is selective and superficial, but he should remember at least a few of its many records of absolute rulers swiftly turning into reviled losers. Procrastination is often a wise political choice, except when troubles are brewing and time is running short.
FYEO

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Per the Navy Times;

"Trump-class battleships should not be built until weapons technology is ready, lawmakers say"

Per USNI;

There are concerns about how many nuclear reactors we have the capability to produce at this time, and CVNs have priority.

2028 may be a bit optimistic.

On the other hand, Japan has had sea trails with a 40mm rail gun that shows some promise, although barrel life and rate of fire are still issues.

Small steps.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Large floating coffins should not be built until we can deal with both naval and air drones in a cost-effective, reliable fashion. This may or may not happen in the forseeable future.

This includes both battleships and carriers.

In other news, Trump is now saying he will attack Iran "very hard". If he does so, I sure hope the US military will be making use of inexpensive strike drones, as this would make the campaign more sustainable.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Let's see if this works. Jessica sent me a photo of the new CVN80 Enterprise fitting out next to the old CVN65 Enterprise being dismantled.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 05:56 pm: Edit

I think it is questionable to refer to a ship that hasn't been designed yet and won't be fighting for a decade as a "floating coffin". Nobody in 2018 thought drones would be a thing, and nobody in 2026 knows what threats will be facing ships in 2036 or what defenses will protect them.

Show me the ship (tank, airplane, armored knight) and I will build something to kill it.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 06:26 pm: Edit

One possible cheap solution to defending ships from drones:

Bring back the 20 mm Oerlikon. They were capable of being hooked to radar fire control and a couple 20 mm rounds will almost certainly kill any airborne drone currently in existence. Watercraft drones would take a few more rounds, but the targets are a lot easier to hit.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 06:58 pm: Edit

There are lots of good, small, modern guns that can be easily adapted to naval service. A number of different vehicle mounted anti-drone guns have proven very effective in Ukraine. My personal favorite for an anti-drone naval gun is the Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun.

USN doesn't seem really all that into guns. They seem to be dismissed as backwards technology ("legacy"), with more interest in things like microwave and lasers (or railguns?!). And admittedly, there have been minor upgrades to 30mm and 5" guns on Burkes to make them somewhat better vs drones.

And one longstanding criticism of gun based defense is that its inherently close range so depending on it as a primary means of defense means if it fails you probably take a hit. Using something like microwave, laser, SM2, ESSM, SeaRAM, or Coyote Mk2 means that one can attempt intercepts much farther out and be able to better thin an incoming swarm in multiple steps. Of course, using most current long range missiles may be murderously expensive. But then again there are no perfect solutions.

--Mike

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Do the French still have the "Water Screens" on any of their ships....
Or was a fad that faded fairly quickly....

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Consider the evidence:

* Ukraine won 5 out of 5 recent naval exercizes versus NATO by "attacking" with naval drones. The NATO force did not even realize it had been attacked.

* In operation Hedgehog, a 10-person Ukrainian drone team "defeated" two British brigades.

* Ukraine routinely hits Russian ships with both naval and air drones. Several have sunk with the loss of all hands.

* The US uses $3M PAC interceptors to shoot down $30k Shaheds.

* In the Ukraine war, large and expensive systems are routinely wrecked by far less expensive drones.

* Against Iran, the US had an AWACS type plane with a value somewhat under a billion dollars wrecked by a few Shaheds.

* Iran-backed militias repeatedly reached US bases with small, inexpensive drones, including Ain al-Asad and Camp Victoria.

In light of all this, before investing in a $13 billion system, surely it would make more sense to prove that one can secure really just about anything against drones.

Rhetorical question -- do we have drone-proof nuclear reactors?

And before you get offended, please remember I want the US to win. War is a harsh master, and in this case, that desire compels me to point out uncomfortable realities.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 11, 2026 - 01:38 am: Edit

WJ: You are cherry picking things to prove your case, but there are many other things that show a much more questionable result. Things are a lot more complicated and there are at lot more moving parts than just drones.

Russia has been able to hit anything in Ukraine it wants to with ballistic and hypersonic missiles.

Ukraine routinely shoots down 80% of the drones fired at it.

Patriots actually cost $4 million, not $3, tsk tsk.

While it isn't unusual to see something big and expensive wrecked by cheap drones, both Russia and Ukraine do this to each other, and the losses while annoying are nowhere near decisive. Ukraine came up with Shaheed-killing interceptors which Russia made obsolete with Shaheed-J in less than 60 days.

Understand, I am nowhere near convinced that battleships are anything other than a crack pipe dream, but there is a very big difference between the "death by drones" you describe and actually hitting a specific point target. If I can pick any 30 of 300 air defense systems and send 500 drones to attack them and get video of one air defense system destroyed, do I get to declare victory as you have? A singular battleship or carrier with three or four escorts and a forest of Gatling guns and short-range missiles and fast-firing cannon with exploding shells is a very different thing that "one random air defense truck out of 300 when I don't even have to declare 'the one' ahead of time".

We already have significant anti-drone defenses. Perfect ones do not exist and never will, but we can get closer. I am not sure we need to stop building anything but drone defenses until we have perfect drone defenses. We'd have them for a few weeks before new drones started penetrating them again.

That said, I am convinced that any war against Russia or China will see multiple US carriers sunk, not necessarily by drones. We didn't even know about the Russian carrier-killer wake-homing torpedoes until the USSR filed bankruptcy. Same with the Skval underwater missiles. China has ballistic missiles that, in a saturation attack, could probably push through any defense of any kind of ship. Unless you're in the restricted waters of the Persian/Arab Gulf I don't think you would see Shaheeds hit a US carrier. There are too many things that can stop the drones, and too many other ways to kill a carrier. But sure, fire 1000 Shaheeds at the Nimitz and you may get a few hits. Not sure if you would get mission kill damage.

Hypersonic missiles keep me up nights.

Current intel is that Iran still has HALF of the stored ballistic missiles it started with. THAT keeps me up mornings.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 11, 2026 - 07:55 am: Edit

and on more UK relevant news - the Minister of Defense, Jonhn Healey has just resigned.

Early days on 'why' - but it appears a shortly to be produced report called Defensive Investment Plan, requested an additional £28 billion over the next 4 years - and reading bwetween the lines - this increase in Defense Spending was rejected.


Various oppositon parties seem to be ageeing, Mr Healey was more serious about protecting the UK - than either the Prime Minister or Chancellor - and unable to achieve that, felt he had to resign.

No idea who the PM will promote to replace Mr Healey (and he is going to face a renewed leadership challenge, probably next Friday, due to other UK Political issues - so it might only be short lived in that position anyway).

So, all fun and games in the UK....