William, so far as I can tell, we have been supporting Ukraine and drew down our war reserve stocks to levels low enough to affect the Iran War.

I don't know how we could do more to support drone strike operations beyond satellite targeting photos. You have, yourself, said the Ukrainians know more about drones than we do. Did you want us to buy advertising space on the side of each Ukrainian drones? Now, wait, that's not a bad idea. Say a suicide strike drone costs $3000. Would you write a $3000 tax deductible check if you got "This drone sponsored by William Jockusch" painted on the side of the drone and a DVD of the drone camera flight with a certificate of authenticity signed by the drone pilot?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 03:04 pm: Edit

July 29, 2026: In the last few years, the Turkish arms industry has been very productive. New systems include the Tufan naval surface attack drone. The Anka 3 fixed-wing reconnaissance and surveillance drone is now in service. The Pamir 4x4 light tactical armored vehicle is used for reconnaissance, rapid response, and Special Operations forces. The Palem is a ground-transport drone. It can carry troops, cargo, and, like similar vehicles in Ukraine, be armed with various weapons. Turkey is also developing hypersonic missiles, as are most other major military powers. These are used frequently by the Russians to hit Ukrainian economic targets and populated areas. Turkey is also developing Kizilelma, an unmanned jet fighter. Turkey finally brought its Altay tank into service to compete with the American M-1 and the German Leopard 2. Turkey also introduced Kaplan, a tracked autonomous combat vehicle that can be equipped with a variety of weapons, including upcoming laser systems to counter drones. FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Chinese South China Sea War Continues
July 28, 2026: The American Navy has become more active in helping the Philippines block China from taking areas of the South China Sea that are legally Filipino. American warships on patrol alongside Filipino vessels are substantially more intimidating when Chinese Navy and Coast Guard vessels show up. Recently, there were incidents of Chinese warships ramming smaller Filipino ships as well as using water cannon against them. Ongoing territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea continue to escalate as the Chinese openly and aggressively drive Filipino navy ships from areas the Philippines has long controlled. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands ruled that, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in a case brought by the Philippines in 2013 protesting Chinese claims and activities in the South China Sea, China was in the wrong. China claims 90 percent of the South China Sea. Over the last seventeen years, China has been increasingly aggressive while asserting those claims. This recently escalated to more tangible things like the artificial islands built throughout the South China Sea and garrisoned with heavily armed Chinese forces.
The American and other Western and local allies like Australia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore send warships and aircraft into the disputed areas to confront the Chinese. The message is that if China wants to start World War 3 in the South China Sea, the opposition will be substantial and include most of China’s neighbors.
An added problem for the Chinese was the 2022 election of Ferdinand Bongbong Romualdez Marcos Jr. as the president of the Philippines. Nicknamed Bongbong, the new president was the son of a prior ousted Filipino president. Bongbong was a populist reformer who delivered on his campaign promises to strengthen military alliances with the United States and with local nations also threatened by China.
The Philippines increased its military presence and activities in the South China Sea, especially around the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal, where it claims sovereignty over parts of the disputed waters and features. The country has also received support from its allies, such as America, Japan, and Australia, in conducting joint exercises and patrols, as well as providing military assistance and equipment. However, China has also intensified its operations and use of coercion in the region, deploying more ships, aircraft, and missiles, and building new structures and facilities on the artificial islands it occupies.
The Philippines has maintained a balance between its alliance with the Americans and its economic ties with China. The Philippines reaffirmed its commitment to the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Americans, which provide for mutual defense and security cooperation, as well as access to military bases and facilities. The country has also welcomed American support for its maritime claims and rights in the South China Sea, as well as American sanctions against Chinese officials and entities involved in the disputes. However, the Philippines has also sought to improve diplomatic relations with China, which is its largest trading partner and a major source of investment.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Russia: Ukrainian Drone SEAD to Moscow
July 28, 2026: For the first time in history, Ukraine has used drones in a SEAD/Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission. The drones took down several air defense radar stations, blinding Russian air defense systems. The Ukrainian drones were able to fly deep into Russia unhindered and destroy several valuable targets. A bonus was that targets near major cities like Moscow and St Petersburg allowed Russian civilians to see how well Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine was going.
SEAD has come a long way since 2024; Ukrainian air force pilots are seeking better equipment and weapons to deal with Russian air defenses. The NATO nations supporting Ukraine had also been working on that, beginning back in 2016, when representatives of NATO air forces met to revive and share Cold War-era knowledge for sending aircraft into heavily defended airspace. The presence of modern Russian anti-aircraft weapons in Syria and the hostile relations between Russia and NATO member Turkey made it useful to review SEAD capabilities. Going after air defense systems, also known as SEAD, rather than the World War II term Flak Suppression, was an expensive, high-priority task during the Cold War. Shutting down air defenses is only undertaken if the target being defended is important enough to warrant such an expensive application of air power. After the Cold War ended, the growing number of precision missiles seemed to be a more efficient means of targeting heavily defended targets. This spurred the development of air defense systems capable of intercepting missiles. The American Patriot SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile )'s ability to intercept SCUD missiles was the first combat example of this technique. While crude, the Patriot showed that it could be done in 1990. Since then, the similar Russian S-300 system has acquired anti-missile capabilities. That said, nearly all the NATO aircraft losses in combat since the 1990s were from low-tech weapons like machine guns and small SAMs.
The last time the United States had to do any serious SEAD was in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. This was against second-rate Russian Cold War-era systems sold to foreign customers. But the Russians have their most modern equipment in Syria, and there was a possibility NATO aircraft might have to deal with it. So the 2016 meeting was a first step in figuring out how to handle a SEAD challenge not seen since the 1980s.
Flying into heavily defended enemy airspace is a risky business. High- and low-altitude anti-aircraft defenses are numerous. Radars are all over the place. One approach is to sneak in with small groups of up to four planes. Coming in low, a few hundred meters high or low enough to singe the treetops, the enemy has little time to react before you are past him. Zipping along at 200 meters a second, there is not much for the enemy to see, or shoot at. Using electronic mapping and navigation devices, the target is found; most of the time, the munitions are released, and an equally rapid exit is made. Few aircraft are capable of this approach, and the most modern detection and weapons systems, such as those Russia had in Syria, are designed to handle it. The Russians also claim they can detect American stealth aircraft. Designing aircraft for maximum resistance to detection to achieve stealth capability was pioneered by America in the 1970s, based on a Russian concept that the Russians could not turn into a workable aircraft. Such an airplane had a reasonable chance of penetrating enemy defenses to hit targets with a high degree of surprise. This is important, as the damage decreases with the amount of warning the target has. Five minutes of warning can reduce air base damage 40 to 80 percent depending on how many concrete aircraft shelters the base has. Stealth, using an F-117 aircraft, worked for the U.S. in the 1990 and 2003 campaigns in Iraq. Still, in case the Russians can detect and hit stealth aircraft, you must be prepared to send in larger groups of aircraft, led by lavishly equipped electronic warfare planes, to ensure successful SEAD and destruction of the target. Since this process tends to destroy many enemy ground defenses along the way, it makes subsequent raids easier.
The package of fighters and support aircraft using SEAD to reach a target is led by Wild Weasel aircraft. These have radar detection and jamming equipment that can either hide the group from enemy radar or prevent the enemy from accurately using their ground-to-air missiles. You will need fighters to deal with enemy interceptors. Thus the battle can range from 10,000 meters up to ground level. The Wild Weasels carry missiles that home in on enemy ground radars. The most dangerous opposition comes from enemy guns, which often can fire without radar in clear weather. For this reason, raids at night and in bad weather are often preferred. If all goes according to plan, the Weasels will protect the less electronically sophisticated strike aircraft on their way to the targets, where the strike aircraft release their loads. Everyone then fights their way home past a thoroughly alerted enemy. The stealth aircraft are well suited to perform the Wild Weasel role and have done so. This has become a common mission, as there are still many non-stealth strike aircraft and a need to suppress anti-aircraft defenses. For targets where surprise is not critical, stealth-led raids are the norm. This was the case in the 1990 and 2003 Gulf Wars.
Russia was striving, with some success until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, to catch up with Western strike aircraft in overall sophistication and effectiveness. Some of their new-generation strike planes, now seen in combat, were effective but not to the extent Russia hoped. Russia has its own AWACS and Wild Weasel aircraft, but both are somewhat tame compared to Western models. Russian pilots, by and large, are not as expert, experienced, or audacious as their Western counterparts. Israel and Sweden, however, produce very capable AWACS, mainly for export, that are superior to anything Russia has.
If the Russians in Syria did become targets, NATO allies had to know whether America was ready to use its latest F-22 and F-35 stealth aircraft and how that would work in cooperation with other NATO warplanes, especially the most modern ones like the Typhoon and Rafale. It is unclear how much was decided about all this, but details regarding SEAD, stealth capabilities, and plans tend to be kept secret. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are using equipment and weapons provided by NATO countries to equip some aircraft as Wild Weasels for use against the Russian air force and air bases across the border in Russia.
FYEO

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 09:23 pm: Edit

We could do a co production deal with them where we are not stingy.

Lots of Republicans keep looking for ways to get the "best deal" for the US in such a deal, where "best deal" is narrowly understood in terms of money, division of the drones, and who pays for what.

1. A better plan would be to be generous! The US can definitely afford it. It would punish Putin/Russia by giving Ukraine more drones with which to strike, and probably do even more grevious damage than they are already doing.

2. Another excellent way to punish Russia would be to stop putting limits on Ukrainian strikes against Russia, such as seems to be happening in the Black Sea. Yes, the world gets less oil. And Russia gets less money. An excellent trade-off.

3. A further excellent way to punish Russia is to stop pressing Ukraine to accept ceasefire terms that do not involve full recovery of its territory. Don't even require them to give lip service to the idea. If Ukraine wants to accept such terms, that is obviously their business. But the US has no business pressing them.

4. Your "tax deductible" is another terrific plan. Make donations to Ukraine's armed forces tax deductible for ordinary American citizens.

There, four ways the US could easily punish Russia. Three of them require being less stingy. One doesn't even require that.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Steve: I'm not going to dive deep into the politics of it (board rules). Rather, I'm going to point out that we took an economic hit driving the Soviet Union to spend itself into oblivion (namely, we tripled the national debt which kept interest rates high right through the '80s), and it didn't affect the political fortunes of the administration one whit.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the position that clamping down on Russian oil, combined with the President addressing the nation to explain exactly why we're doing so (without any fakery about "it'll be very brief", "it won't affect you", etc., but coming right out and asking Americans to be willing to take a bit of a hit in order to do the right thing), may actually stir up some of long-latent real patriotism.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:03 pm: Edit

I don't think the only way to punish Russia is to help Ukraine. (BTW, how much do they pay you to push their agenda?) Stingy and self-interest are not identical.

1. I am okay with my plan to build a factory (that will only take a year and the war will be over by then), build drones and learn their technology and share our own, sell them half of the drones on some kind of post-war payment scheme like we did in WWII, pay Ukraine a royalty on the ones we keep. I will remind everyone that the US military was the first to use drones and has been using them for 30 years and has considerable technology, much of which has quietly be shared with Ukraine already.

2. I am not aware of these limits but I can see continuing the "don't wreck the world economy" policy until we wrap up the Iran mess.

3. I don't think anyone has pressured Ukraine to accept a ceasefire plan in well over a year.

4. Glad you liked the plan. Actually, it's been in place for four years. There are no end of Ukrainian charities raising money for non-lethal items. I have donated to several of them, and it was tax deductible. I am not going to see us start listing Ukrainian charities on this BBS but they're fairly easy for anyone to find.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:04 pm: Edit

To be entirely clear: I'm beyond tired of pitching to the American people that we can fight wars without everyone doing their part for it (conserving strategic resources, paying a bit more taxes or buying war bonds, etc.). It's something we used to do, right up through the Korean War, but somehow (aside from the draft) it had disappeared by the time of the Vietnam War, instead opting to put the cost on the national credit card.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:07 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:09 pm: Edit

We need to cut up the national credit card.

I pledge if you make me dictator for four years (thereafter I will stand trial in the senate for anything I did wrong) my first act will be to hire Dave Ramsay to get the US budget balanced and start paying down the debt. Dave said he would work for me if I shut down payday loans (cap interest and fees at 12%], revamped student loans [as per the previous topic], make cash value life insurance illegal to sell new policies and convert all existing policies to cheap term plans with the cash value paid to the holders), and allow anyone with a timeshare contact to cancel it [for the cost of a certified letter] without anything the timeshare scammers can do to stop them.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:14 pm: Edit

I already have NASA working on Plan B to end the war in Iran.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:16 pm: Edit

We most assuredly need to cut up the national credit card. Or at the very least, we need to make any kind of deficit spending require a 2/3rds supermajority of both the House and Senate (to limit it to actual emergency contingencies).

I'm right there with you on shutting down payday loans, revamping student loans, sending cash value life insurance back to the fiery pit from whence it came (they targeted GIs like mad), and allowing people out of timeshare cons.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 10:37 pm: Edit

During our engagement, Leanna's mother asked us to meet at Leanna's apartment with a friend of hers who would give us advice on marriage. We thought this was a harmless family favor and agreed. Turns out, he was a cash value life insurance salesman. I already had all the life insurance I needed in much cheaper term and a strong investment program with the extra money. He started talking and I figured out in about a minute this was a waste of time but decided to be polite. Leanna later said she kept expecting (and wanting) me to throw him out. He spent an hour or more explaining the wonderful insurance and then said "do you have any questions?" I said "No, I have no questions." He pulls out a form and starts filling it out and 15 seconds in is asking for my address and social security number. I asked him what he was doing and he said "filling out your application." and I said "I didn't say I wanted to buy it" and he said "you said you had no questions, now, what is your address?" I made it very clear that I wasn't going to buy it and that we would chat with him about life and marriage all he wanted. He left in something of a huff, complaining that WE had wasted HIS time.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 02:26 am: Edit

William, you are WAY out of line. I made no such attack, just a joke.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 09:06 am: Edit

At various times in my life, I personally lived in Ukraine for a total of between four and five years. There is more, but that's enough for now.

I personally became a Republican when I realized that Ronald Reagan's policy of standing up to evil had been right all along and had brought tremendous benefits to the world.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 10:53 am: Edit

How to punish Russia?

Just stop putting perfectly operable tanks, aircraft, APCs, military trucks in storage forever. Sierra has a couple thousand M1 IIRC, Anniston has some Arty, Davis Mothan for Aircraft.

Just ship them over to Ukraine at no cost. We save on the cost of storing them (it's a lot more than you think).

I actually set up APS-5 in Afghanistan and it take a tremendous amount of labor just to store stuff...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 10:56 am: Edit

For example, "The U.S. Air Force proposed retiring 62 F-16 Fighting Falcons in its fiscal year 2026 budget request..." Google AI.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Mike, the reason Ukraine doesn't have more F-16s is the lack of pilots. It's a logistics thing; there is not enough room in the F16 schools to train more than 20 Ukrainian pilots at a time. -Kievpost

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 01:05 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Marines: USMC Uses Commercial Shipping
July 30, 2026: Last month in the Philippines, American Marines unloaded anti-ship and air defense systems from a commercial ship. This was part of a NMESIS/Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System test. The Marines are learning how to rapidly deploy these weapons, as well as radars and other electronic monitoring equipment, to islands in the South China Sea and the Philippines. If there were a war or crisis with China, effectively executing these maneuvers would go a long way toward deterring Chinese aggression. The American Army is also contributing with launchers carrying cruise and anti-aircraft missiles.
In the early stages of World War II in the Pacific, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the takeover of all available foreign commercial shipping in Allied-controlled territory. These ships were essential in the early stages of the war to move Allied troops within the Southwest Pacific Theater of operations.
The Marines have also established the Marine Littoral Regiment, which will be built around existing Marine Regiments. The 1st Marine Littoral Regiment is based in Hawaii, the 2nd Marine Littoral Regiment is based in North Carolina, and the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment is based in Japan.
The littoral regiments make use of existing equipment to provide needed weapons, aircraft, and vehicles. One item, nine LSM\Landing Ship Mediums for each littoral regiment, does not exist yet. The Marines and the Navy are still working out the design of these new ships, which are larger and more capable versions of the World War II-era LSMs. They have not behaved themselves; one special item has to be obtained separately. The Marines want 45 LSMs for the three Littoral Regiments. This will provide nine LSMs per regiment, plus spares to replace LSMs that are out of service for maintenance or upgrades. The Navy and Marines are arguing over whether the LSM should be expensive at more than $300 million for each warship or cheaper, at about $100 million for each LSM transport. The Marines point out that neither the Navy's nor the Marine Corps' budget can afford the more expensive LSM version and note that the American Army already has eight 4,200-ton Besson-class logistics support vessels designed to do most of what the LSM is supposed to do. The Army logistics ships were built between 1987 and 2006. The Army ships have a crew of 31 and can travel 12,000 kilometers at 21 kilometers per hour, unrefueled and fully loaded. That can mean 82 standard shipping containers, fifteen M1 tanks, or anything in between. The Army ships have RO/RO (Roll On/Roll Off) capability for vehicles. The Army ships are similar in design to commercial transports used throughout the Pacific. The Marines are leasing two of these commercial ships to test their LSM concepts. The LSMs can be built quickly, and if the Navy and Marines agree on an LSM design soon, the new LSMs can begin arriving soon, with all 35 delivered by the early 2030s.
And then there is the problem that America lacks enough ships to support military operations in the Pacific. While the Marine Corps would be involved in the Pacific, most of the military manpower would be provided by the Army. A growing problem is the shrinking U.S. Army transport fleet. The Army has always had some ships of its own, for moving troops and equipment and for managing amphibious operations or major port operations overseas that need to happen very quickly. This is a tradition and a necessity that go back to the American Revolution. The Army is still seeking sufficient shipping to support a Pacific Ocean campaign. The Army was able to obtain only 8 6,000-ton LSV/Logistics Support Vessel units. The LSV is similar to the famous World War II-era LST/Landing Ship Tank. The LSVs are the largest transport ships the Army operates. The current Army naval force consists of over 130 vessels. These ships are mainly for port operations or landing craft. What is missing are freighters, tankers, and troop ships to get the Army and its supplies to the combat zone.
The American Army has always owned ships, usually tugs and coastal craft, to assist in moving supplies. During World War II, the American Army actually had more ships and more tonnage than the American Navy. By 2000, the Army had only about 295 ships. Nearly 20 years later, that number fell to 130. Back then, the decision was to buy more, mainly to speed up the deployment of units to overseas hot spots. During the 1991 Gulf War, it took the Army 150 days to move five divisions by sea to the Persian Gulf. It actually took 205 days to move all the combat and support units to the Gulf.
In 2000, the Army plan was to buy three LSVs. These are actually LSTs and can carry 24 M-1 tanks and deliver them right to a beach. At that time, the Army already had six LSVs. The Army also went on to buy high-speed, 80-kilometer-an-hour catamaran ferries that can move twenty tanks some 2,000 kilometers. The LSVs and 20 larger Roll-On/Roll-Off transports would be used to pre-position an armored brigade's worth of equipment off potential hot spots. Just add the troops, get the equipment ashore, and you're ready for war. All these Army ships were needed after September 11, 2001. With the terrorism threat, the Army has returned to obtaining shipping that can be quickly chartered. That worked after 2000 because the enemy was unable to threaten ships and charters, and their civilian crews were willing to do the work.
There is another potential complication. In the past, America has often been called on by its allies during military crises. The allies did not need much help with weapons or combat, but with logistics. America has been, for nearly a century, the world leader in moving military personnel and cargo to where it is needed and doing so under the most trying conditions of nature or enemy interference. Unless there is a major naval threat that requires a major military operation to protect shipping, America remains the most experienced at quickly organizing a major military logistics effort.
America spends nearly $2 billion a year to move military personnel and material. This does not include additional spending for war-related logistics. The level of activity and the length of time America has been at it make access to American logistics resources and specialists highly sought after by American allies. While the allies appreciate having American aircraft or ships move stuff for them, often it’s just the excellent and experienced advice from the Americans that is needed. What the army still needs are ships that can quickly and in large numbers land materiel somewhere without a major port nearby. That’s where LSVs, LCUs and LCMs are essential. These ships are essential for getting goods from ship to shore, no matter where the shore is, when port facilities are inadequate.
The most visible American military logistics organization is the USTRANSCOM/US Transportation Command or Transcom for short. The Air Force component is AMC/Air Mobility Command; the Navy contribution is MSC/Military Sealift Command. The Army contributes its expertise in handling the last mile, using ground and river/canal transport to get material from ships to the end user.
Since World War II, military logistics has evolved from a largely Army chore to one that depends much more on air freight. It was during World War II that America found it had the talent and capacity for truly massive, unprecedented logistical efforts on a global scale. Most of this was run by the Army, which had more ships under its control than the Navy. The Army ships and coastal craft were mostly for logistics, and that fleet of over 110,000 vessels contained very few warships. After World War II, the Navy got control of the Army fleet, and the Army Air Force became a separate service and developed a huge fleet of air freighters. The Army developed several generations of trucks and innovations like rapidly built temporary pipelines and a global network of transportation contractors.
These days, the largest component of Transcom is AMC. Most of the Transcom personnel are reservists or civilians, and much of the actual cargo movement is handled by aircraft, ships, and trucks hired for the occasion.
AMC and the Army move more tonnage, but if you want something moved anywhere very fast, which is common in wartime, AMC gets it done. AMC does this with a fleet of 1,100 aircraft. In 2011, when there were still many American troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan, AMC carried out 105,000 sorties, 20 percent of which were aerial refueling, the rest moving personnel and freight. MSC moved 502,000 measurement tons of cargo as well as 6.6 million tons of fuel.
The Army transport-type shipping is still needed as a reserve capability. Many of the Army ships are operated by reserve units, where part-time soldiers maintain skills needed in an emergency, when time is at a premium. That has been the Army's experience in every conflict America has been involved in for over a century.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: Taiwan Drone Based Defenses
July 30, 2026: Recently, the Taiwanese government announced plans to spend $6.6 billion to purchase some 211,000 locally manufactured drones to prepare for a potential Chinese invasion. There are 208,200 attack drones, 1,446 reconnaissance drones, and 1,320 naval attack drones. Taiwan is in the process of procuring MQ-9 SeaGuardian and Alyius drones.
Taiwan has been threatened with a Chinese attack for over 70 years. Spending 3% of GDP on defense led the current American president to suggest 10%. The Americans depend on strong Taiwanese defenses because the U.S. is obliged by treaty to send military forces to augment Taiwanese efforts to block a Chinese attack.
Taiwan has been continually upgrading its defenses. Some of the more recent upgrades include SEAD/Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses capabilities. This includes purchasing the AGM-88E HARM High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. Taiwan has also upgraded some of its F-16s to the latest F-16V variant, which includes the ability to use the AGM-88E. Taiwan also upgraded its F-16s to this F-16V Block 52 standard.
Taiwan has developed a new SEAD Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses loitering munition called Chien Hsiang/Rising Sword. This is a compact 1.2 x 2 meter propeller-driven drone weighing 6 kg. Cruise speed is 185 kilometers an hour, endurance is five hours, and max range is 900 kilometers. Its guidance system consists mostly of electronic sensors that detect signals from specific radars or other systems that continuously emit electronic signals. In addition, there is a video system that uses an image library to identify a specific system to attack. This is done by Chien Hsiang, which dives and hits the target at speeds of up to 600 kilometers an hour. This is sufficient to destroy or disable antennas or radars.
This drone is built for endurance and, apparently, moves most of the time slowly so it can stay in the air for up to 100 hours. The guidance system can be programmed to follow several strategies, and the difficulty of spotting the small drone makes it a threat to enemy ships or land-based radars. Chien Hsiang is launched from launch/storage containers mounted on a flatbed tractor-trailer truck, with the launcher boxes stacked four high. Chien Hsiang apparently launches from the box via a small rocket. Each stack of boxes can be raised at an angle so the drones can easily gain altitude.
The drones can be launched individually or in rapid succession to form a swarm. The guidance system handles swarm management and coordination. This enables multiple drones to search an area and, when a target is found, several or all members of the swarm will attack. While Chien Hsiang is relatively slow, it is small and emits little noise and no electronic signals. That makes it jamming-proof and difficult to spot and shoot. Chien Hsiang bears a resemblance to the earlier Israeli Harpy anti-radar drone. The Harpy was heavier at 136 kg, larger, and had a five-hour endurance. Taiwan believes that smaller with longer endurance is better.
Also purchased were 135 SLAM-ER Standoff Land Attack Missiles, eleven HIMARS High Mobility Artillery Rocket System rocket launcher vehicles, and six MS-110 reconnaissance pods.
The AGM-84K SLAM-ER entered service in 2000. It is a 675-kg cruise missile with a range of 270 kilometers, a speed of 855 kilometers per hour, and a GPS/shape-recognition guidance system that has proved very accurate. The target can be changed, or the mission aborted remotely by the pilot at any time. SLAM-ER costs nearly a million dollars each and has a 220-kg warhead based on the one used on the Tomahawk cruise missile. SLAM-ER is actually a scaled-up Harpoon anti-ship missile.
HIMARS rocket launcher vehicles fire GPS-guided rockets at targets nearly a hundred kilometers distant. Half of the new HIMARS order is for heavier trucks with added armor. These heavy trucks are typically used as wreckers to retrieve vehicles that get stuck. HIMARS can also fire larger, longer-range ATACMS rockets with a 300-kilometer range. Each of these takes up an entire pod, and each ATACMS carries 300 smaller bombs that can destroy armored vehicles or personnel. Also on order are 65 pods, each with six GMLRS rockets, and 90 pods with shorter-range, cheaper practice rockets. The order also includes spares, maintenance equipment, and technical support and training.
HIMARS is a cheaper, lighter version of the original MLRS/Multiple Launch Rocket System. HIMARS is a truck-mounted launcher, with each vehicle carrying only one six-rocket pod instead of two in the original MLRS. The 12-ton truck can fit into a C-130 transport, unlike the 22-ton tracked MLRS vehicle. The first of the initial 900 HIMARS vehicles were issued to American combat units in 2004. The U.S. Army is using most of the HIMARS, with the Marines getting the rest. A growing number of American allies have become export customers for HIMARS. The key to the combat success of HIMARS is its use of the 227mm diameter, 309 kg GMLRS/Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System GPS-guided rocket. GMLRS was first used in 2004. It currently has a range of 85 kilometers and the ability to land within meters of its intended target at any range.
Late last year, Taiwan successfully conducted sea trials for six SeaShark 680 naval drones. These drones, including, eventually, the larger SeaShark 800, carry payloads that include an autonomous guidance system, navigational sensors, explosives, and an AI-enhanced navigation and communications system that enables groups of SeaSharks to form and maintain a swarm despite enemy electronic jamming. Taiwan is buying 1,350 SeaSharks at a cost of $750,000 each. The larger SeaShark 800 will carry a ton of explosives.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 02:11 pm: Edit

William, I figured there was some reason for your fanatical position of "no matter what happens or where it happened, we need to give more to Ukraine." You might want to be more measured. Generosity has its virtues, but when we're running a budget deficit (we should not be) I'm not wild about borrowing money for your grandchildren to pay interest on just to feel generous. Ukraine has huge undeveloped resources and can afford post war payments for its freedom. French money paved the road for our freedom, and the French government collapsed and the royal family were murdered because of that generosity.

Mike: To a point I agree, but not entirely. The US Army has been ordered by Congress to be ready to fight WWII all over again, with multi-million man armies and hordes of tanks. (That's why the Army Reserve has 30,000 drill sergeants, just in case we need to train 5 million soldiers.) Having enough tanks to stand up a few divisions is a key part of that. I could see sending 100 to Ukraine, but I am not sure the Russians can hold out long enough for the crews to be trained. What Trump should have done in his first term was to start training thousands of Ukrainians to operate US weapons and to conduct operations in the US/NATO style. I will note that the US has been the world leader in military drones for three or four decades, but those clever Ukrainians passed us in four years. Necessity is the mother of invention, and desperation is the mother of speed. We do need to keep pumping Ukrainian pilots through the schools, maybe setting up another school in Poland with retired USAF instructors. Graduating 20 every six months is just not getting the job done. I have to ask if we might not recruit retired US (and maybe NATO) pilots to reform the Flying Tigers.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 09:35 pm: Edit

SVC, "more measured" after a direct military attack? How did that work out in 2014? Or 2022? Or 1936-8?

The way to defeat this evil is to meet it with overwhelming force.

"Measured" responses were tried in Minsk, for example.

In another century, they were tried in Munich.

I see Putin killed another family of 10 yesterday with an Iskander missile, because of course he did.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 10:55 pm: Edit

William, YOU should use a more measured approach. Your strident polemics don't accomplish your goals and turn people off. You're pushing me to a place I don't want to have to go.

Here is an example:
"I see Putin killed another family of 10 yesterday with an Iskander missile, because of course he did."

Putin established a policy and the generals carried it out and civilians got killed. That is a far distance from he personally murdered people he selected by name. He doesn't sign off on each missile; no one knows for sure where the missiles will land; civilians may or may not be hit by any given missile. It's a far less personal, totally indirect, chain of events. Posting it the way you did is just not justified and isn't helping your case. Here is a more correct version you should use.

"Putin's policy of ordering the generals to fire missiles into civilian areas resulted in more deaths, tragically including an entire family of 10."

What you are posting is more like this: "Zelensky personally ordered the murder of ten Wildberry warehouse workers by targeting the warehouse at Penza because of course he did."

What Putin is doing is bad enough without ascribing magical powers of ESP targeting to his bald head. The guy is a human war criminal, not a supernatural demon.

BTW, my personal regards to your wife and family.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 30, 2026 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Thank you for the last part.

I agree with your distinctions. But from a policy standpoint, they don't matter much.

It remains the case that decidedly non-measured, radical, and uncompromising policies against Putin and Russia are by far the best way to bring an end to this thing.

You can get facts wrong too, and similarly annoy me. It is not the case that Ukrainian corruption is anywhere near Russian corruption. I've lived the former. Probably paid about $250-500 total in bribes over the years. Obnoxious and inappropriate . . . but I never felt threatened, even when I got angry about it.