It was always going to be a terrible tragedy with Ukraine. Vlad committed something much worse than a crime, he committed a mistake (to paraphrase Talleyrand). NATO+ countries aren't fighting him, they are using Ukraine as a proxy, while Vlad is fighting with his own army. NATO has been waiting nearly 80 years to attack Russia directly. They very motivated to make sure that Vlad continues making errors. As such, the…
> And, unfortunately, the worse for Ukraine In what way would having the whole of Ukraine annexed like Crimea be better for Ukraine?
gee what a mystery. how about no more bloodshed for starters.
> future of warfare Color me skeptical. It feels like what we're seeing now is a local optimum: new systems (drones) designed to asymmetrically win ($) against legacy systems (mechanized vehicles) designed for very different goals. We'll see what things look like once the post-drone evolution cycle has turned on the armored side. That said, I do think the Marines are right, in that distributed agility/logistics from…
> We'll see what things look like once the post-drone evolution cycle has turned on the armored side I'm not convinced this is feasible in the short term; drone warfare is predicated on launching not just cheap drones but many of them. The new armor isn't steel or iron to survive the blast, but to shoot down attacking drones before they can explode. Most current defenses are ground-based missile batteries that can't…
Is there ever a world (other than sci-fi) in which drones become a useful countermeasure against other drones?
I have been watching the warfare via several Telegram channels and observe how important drone warfare now is. I watched 5 $10M Abrams tanks destroyed by $500 FPV drones. Close combat on troops is also conducted with drones with remarkable precision. We don't know how much of the targeting and execution by Russia is automated verses manual, but many experts in this field agree that Russia's technical capability is at…
I thought Russia's hypersonic missiles were a failure, with the Ukrainians shooting them down with 30 year old Patriot missiles? There were a lot of articles about it last year, here's one: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/09/what-ukraines-...
Additionally, Iran claims that Israel did not intercept any of the hypersonic missiles they fired at Israel.
NATO does not possess any hypersonic missiles. Some people might say that NATO is keeping them secret, but that makes no sense. Nations exhibit their technologies as a deterrent.
As a minor point of no real consequence the Cessna T-41 Mescalero has been in service in the US airforce and army from 1964 until today, and I've been told the Diamond DA20 Katana is in indirect service via a through a civilian contract that screens prospective pilots. Weird nitpick, I know. There's also a slew of drones that may or may not use efficient small piston engines or rotary varients which may or may not co…
SOCOM allegedly uses : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3Harris_OA-1K_Sky_Warden It looks like someone is abusing a small prop plane that's normally used for crop dustin and just duct taping some cheap weapons to it. Because that's exactly what it is
Heh - hardened crop duster.
I'm getting strong PAC 750XL family vibes from that, we had a modified version hardened to fly 80 m drapes across all of Mali some years back .. locals were taking random potshots as it passed over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks
Reading the comments here is giving me the disturbing realization that the war in Ukraine is extremely valuable to the US because the US gets to collect immense amounts of data to inform perspectives on how modern technology is revolutionizing warfare with minimal risk to American troops. And that's with technology in the hands of an extremely motivated ally against one of our top rivals. This opportunity doesn't com…
Did you get the disturbing realization that Russia gets data on the materiel too?
Of course they are, but to me at least, it seems like their cost-benefit is very different from the US. I don't think the war is worth it to them just to learn more about warfare.
Reading the comments here is giving me the disturbing realization that the war in Ukraine is extremely valuable to the US because the US gets to collect immense amounts of data to inform perspectives on how modern technology is revolutionizing warfare with minimal risk to American troops. And that's with technology in the hands of an extremely motivated ally against one of our top rivals. This opportunity doesn't com…
It's worth considering that while the equipment in use in the ukraine conflict is obviously relevant, the nature of the conflict is radically different from what the US would face. Ukraine is literally on Russia's doorstep, allowing Russia to send its units in and pull them back for repairs with relatively limited logistical strain. This allows it to use massive numbers of cold war surplus assets that would not be vi…
I agree Ukraine never had a chance against the far superior Russian military. The reason the US and NATO did not officially send ground troops, although many of their people are on the ground, is that it would trigger full war between NATO and Russia which would go thermonuclear. If that ever happened, Russia's larger and more advanced nuclear arsenal (ballistic missiles) would give it an advantage. Their large land mass, twice that of the US, would give them a better survival chance after the fallout.
I have a thick skin, kid. I have seen things and done things in my life to know something about the military. Aside of stupidity of the Rada to prohibit any form of negotiation. Aside of almost perfect peace negotiations with Russia, ruined by MIC and Boris Johnson. This is the historical reality of war. There is no technology who will remove the need of a soldier on foot to put a flag on a territory. War is logistic…