For some context, two months ago, I went to PLA open day at the HK garrison(photos if you want); the firearms exhibit was essentially the PLA's new generation(or type 20 series) of standard issue weapons(QBZ-191, QBZ-192, QCQ-171(only managed to take a pic of the factsheet), QSZ-92A and QSZ-193), and the HK garrison is considered pretty high priority in new equipment;

According to the QSZ-193 factsheet(which i photographed and translated on my open day post), it's role is to replace the QSZ-11(used by high ranking officers); the QSZ-92A(9 milimeter) also appears to also be more and more common in photos. (for the QCW-05 which also has the 5.8x21mm, it hasn't really been seen much in service anymore)

The PLA hasn't introduced a new 5.8x21mm firearm since the QSZ-11, which apparently is now getting replaced; does anyone else think the PLA is planning to no longer use the 5.8x21 round, and any speculation why? Or is it possible they may plan to use the 5.8x21mm round in another potential future firearm?

Navy has finally released an RFI for the industry seeking two fully functional prototypes within three years.

So long, USAF is already flying their multiple CCAs. Even the Marines are flying Valkyrie. The Navy, meanwhile, has only the MQ-25.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/army-secretary-resigns-after-months-of-friction-with-hegseth-9c124207

I've been thinking about China's military buildup and I can't help but think the narratives around it are somewhat conflicting. It seems to me that fundamentally there are three possible outcomes here:

1. China is building up its military to take Taiwan by any means necessary and will fundamentally reshape the geopolitics of East Asia and the world.

2. China is building up its military as a defensive precaution but has no intent on actually using it (other than the internal security forces to control the domestic population).

3. China is building up its military but will end up using it to reinforce the existing global order. This will likely require an eventual sharing of power by the CCP with other domestic groups. This, ironically, may be the easiest path for China to pursue unification with Taiwan who may be happy to become a part of a China with Rule of Law/Separation of Powers/Freedom of Speech/Democracy/etc.

In scenario 1, China's military buildup is not malinvestment however it seems like the costs of using it could be extraordinarily high. Just like Russia in Ukraine or the USA in Iran, I'm sure China would go in thinking that the blockade/war would be "over by Christmas" but it seems highly likely that at a minimum there would be serious catastrophic attacks against Xiamen/Shanghai/Beijing/etc. That isn't even to mention that chaos that would erupt on the Korean Peninsula, the high likelihood of Japanese/American involvement, European/Western sanctions etc. Even if taking Taiwan by force is popular internally (which we have no way of assessing) I have a hard time believing that many Chinese would consider the levelling of a major continental Chinese city is a worthwhile price to pay. This seems like it would be incredibly destabilising internally. There is also no guarantee that even were Taiwan to basically surrender immediately that the USA/Japan/SK/etc wouldn't respond with force anyway.

In scenario 2, the military buildup is similar to that pursued by the USSR. Forever preparing for a war that never came, the buildup played a large role in bankrupting the USSR and didn't even prevent its collapse. Military buildup as a jobs program is also massively inefficient as it doesn't raise the populace's living standards at all (which would help the CCP retain popularity/power).

In scenario 3, I think this would be viewed as a largely positive outcome and possibly the best available to us. When China first joined the WTO it was sincerely believed that China would liberalise and democratise just like Taiwan/South Korea/etc had.

If we consider scenario 3 to be unlikely, then that leaves options 1 & 2 and both seem to not be very good outcomes for the CCP. I suppose that there is the possibility that China executes the perfectly what Russia & the USA both respectively failed to do in Ukraine/Iran but considering that directionally it seems like modern warfare has shifted towards a relative strengthening of the positions of smaller states, I consider this outcome pretty unrealistic.

I'll reveal myself here and say I personally can't see how China will remain a one-party authoritarian dictatorship in the long-run. A free and democratic China would be a leading light in the world and likely propel humanity to even greater heights than we have already achieved. I also know many Chinese people (and speak some Chinese so not just English speakers) and on a personal level they all seem to want the exact type of rights/protections from the state enjoyed by Westerners.

I'd be interested in any thoughts on what I've written.

This is the second award under CHAOS (Coalition Heterogeneous Affordable Offensive Strike) program, the first contract was awarded to CoAspire for its surface-launched RAACM-ER.

But unlike RAACM-ER, Rusty Dagger is very far ahead in development. It's already in production for Ukraine’s Air Force and have hit some neat targets with precision while also maintaining high survival rates.

Let's see if Andruil's Barracuda-M also gets awarded a contract or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/30/military-leaders-warn-hegseth-against-extending-iran-war-operations/

I understand their is a degree of difference but indulge me if you will with this scenario.