... today.
Monday, February 16, 2026
LOL. Yes, Warning My Ass.
Before that--the author of this drivel.
He is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer and Distinguished Military Graduate with five years of military experience. Brent has earned a PhD in Political Science/ Public Policy, an MA in Political Science/ International Relations, an MS in Journalism, and a BA in English. Brent lives with his wife and son in Washington, DC.
In other words he has no idea that sinking decommissioned ships for training is as old as the artillery in the navies around the world. Today you add missiles, torpedoes, what have you.
SINKEX: Why the U.S. Navy Sinks Its Own Warships as a Warning to Russia and China.
I have news for Mr. Brent M. Eastwood--with such background as his:
It will be nearly impossible to explain to him why Russians are not impressed. I assume he can handle basic tables in Excel where he should put ranges and velocities of missiles, torpedoes and AD capabilities of two respective navies and maybe he will get the message. I doubt, though. Especially difficult to do so against the background of the US losing the arms race by a knockout. What's left is coping. But then again--he should know basics, forget about in depth.
I doubt he has a tool kit to grasp it. So, cope harder.
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Wrong Term ...
... "shelved" is not the applicable term. More like removed into the deep recesses of archives of naval curiosities, never to be shown to public again in order to avoid embarrassment. I always stress--it is sometimes even painful for me seeing mighty US Navy, with its glorious heroic history, becoming a butt of jokes around the world, and not only because of the obsolete carrier-centric concept, but this:
The US Navy’s Trump-class battleship will be 'quietly shelved'. Summary and Key Points: The proposed Trump-class “guided-missile battleship” (BBG(X)) is pitched as a revival of American sea power, but the concept clashes with how modern naval war is actually fought. The platform is missile-centric—more like a bloated destroyer than a true battleship—while remaining highly vulnerable to submarines, long-range missiles, and ISR-driven targeting. Exotic add-ons like railguns and shipborne lasers are power-hungry and still unreliable at sea, while bigger hulls simply create bigger, pricier targets. Worse, U.S. shipyards are already strained, meaning BBG(X) would likely crowd out submarines and logistics ships that matter more in a China fight.
Child-emperor loves expensive shiny toys and he doesn't care, nor can grasp modern warfare, naval or not.
This is the thing which many US generals (and Admirals) still cannot grasp--the opposite side has as good ISR as the US. ISR means targeting and firing solutions, after that--all bets are off. Salvo Model rules and real serious militaries plan and fight based on model, some of them being in the process of constant update and modifications, 24/7 literally. This is how Russian General Staff operates, its GOU--Main Operational Directorate. Same goes for Main Staff of the Russian Navy. And the author correctly states, when it comes to China and her PLAN--the US Navy has only one avenue to pursue--submarine forces which still (emphasis on "still") maintains a sizeable, generational, lead over PLAN's submarine force. In terms of surface fleet--US Navy's readiness is a huge question mark. But in the end, it is not just arithmetic of MK41 VLS, it is what is in those VLS which makes all the difference.
Some Tactical Visuals ...
... from liberated Tsvetkovo in Zaporozhe. Courtesy of 218th Tank Regiments of Russian Army.
That Is What Happens ...
... when your officer corps looks like this))
And most of it have been taught fairy tales in "academies" and war colleges.
I have news for Gen. Steven Carpenter (if anyone wonders who this general is and his official bio from Pentagon):
1. For any associated with Wisbaden NATO officer is like being branded a loser, because Wisbaden group "planning" killed many hundreds of thousands of khohol and gave us all a "masterpiece" of military incompetence in 2023 "counter-offensive". He should ask his boss--General Donahue;
2. Any references to the "experience" of "Russian-Ukrainian War" by the US Army is a joke--counting beans of missiles and loitering munitions, accompanied, of course, with comments from VSU, is wrong for starters, because MRAU (Массированный Ракетно-Авиационный Удар--Massed Missile-Aviation Strike) in case NATO decides to "fight" Russia will not be "600 to 1,200 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and long-range one-way attack drones every 24-hour period"--it will be at least twice larger and it could be sustained for months;
3. Here comes the most important part: US Army has NO kinetic means of intercepting any salvo composed of three to four different types of stand off weapons, not to mention the fact that US so called Air Defense is incapable of intercepting super-sonic, let alone hyper-sonic weapons. Considering the state of the Raytheon and what it sells, the US will run out of any "defensive missiles" within first two-three weeks and will sustain at least 3,600 casualties a day ...
The "transformation of the US Army" is impossible, because you cannot change cultural and military genetics--it will remain what it always was--an expeditionary force with obsolete TOE and with largely confabulated military history throughout the XX century. It doesn't mean that there are no courageous people or competent officers in the US Army. Of course there are, there are many robust professionals up to a level of division, after that ... So, let them wet dream. Or "spread targeting across borders", as one child correctly stated:
Because you do not come to the gunfight with a knife--the truth many US generals didn't learn yet, many never will. And don't start me on the officer corps education.
Some Explanation Of Head-On Battle ...
... or as Lester Grau somewhat mistakenly terms it a "meeting battle". The reason he uses this term is because in Russian it is встречный бой, which literally is meeting but semantically it is head-on.
Why the distinction is crucial? Because any battle by definition is a "meeting battle", but in the US Field Manual FM/ATP 3-21.8 "movement to contact", as an example, is defined as:
Movement to contact is a type of offensive operation designed to develop the situation and establish or regain contact. It ends when enemy contact is made.
But head-on battle, is when BOTH sides, using US FM's terms, are conducting "movement to contact", of when deploying from the march columns. One of the most, if not the MOST famous head-on battles in history is, of course, the clash from march of Rotmistrov's 5th Tank Army with the II SS Panzer Corps, HEAD-ON at Prokhorovka during Kursk Battle--a cataclysmic event, which, of course, later was "properly" and promptly misrepresented by the US Army History Department official employees such as Mainstein and Hausser.
.jpg)
As you all remember--those very generals and marshals who lost the war to Russians. Why did I post this here? In my today's video which should be up shortly (an hour or so), I explain SitRep from SMO's battle lines by one of the actual officers at Zaporozhe operational axis who absolutely demolishes BS from 404 (MI6-CIA) propaganda about some "offensive" and describes HEAD-ON battles (бои) around Priluki and Kosovtsevo.
Those are not real operations--it is throwing remaining cannon fodder into meatgrinder and, putting 404 flags in the outskirts of some hamlet, making a photo or video and then ... run. This is how NATO "fights"--PR primarily. So, when the video pops up--this is for those who will be watching it to the end to orient themselves in relation to what Russian officers at battle lines say. Now, down the memory lane, well into the 1920s.
The League of Nations: Capitalists of the World, Unite! Aged as a fine wine. Today, of course, the slogan is: pedophiles, satanists and monsters of the world, unite! Don't you agree?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)