Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just watched Oblivion again. Oddly prescient for 2013.
Good morning, mistletoe. How are you feeling today? Are you an effective team?
I’m not feeling like an effective team today, Sally.
Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
71–80 of 80 posts
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US military didn't lose. They had overwhelming tactical and technological superiority, 20:1 kill ratios, and consistently inflicted heavy casualties whenever they engaged the enemy directly. Now that didn't translate into accomplishing the political war goals of nation-building, changing cultures, and counter-insurgency without massive troop presence; but that wasn't a failure of the armed forces. What's that lin…
What is the point of a war if not to achieve the political outcome of the war? No-one starts a war to get a high K/D ratio, so it's only relevant to the extent that it helps with the political outcome, and on that front the US failed to achieve its goals. And I don't think this was something the armed forces had no part in: the manner in which they went about trying to achieve this goal certainly has an affect on the…
My point was a narrow rebuttal against the idea that the military lost against shepherds. They defeated them soundly, inflicting heavy losses while operating under a comparatively restrained ROE.
In the broader context of the discussion, the post I was replying to made it sound like US military might would be rendered ineffective against drones, just the same as it supposedly would against IEDs. That isn’t the case.
While IEDs accounted for losses, the US didn’t fail to accomplish war goals in Afghanistan because of technology, power, or IEDs, but just because of simple politics.
How would you propose the armed forces act differently in Afghanistan to change “hearts and minds” among a people that quite clearly support Taliban values and the existing way of life?
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the swarms that everyone gushes over aren't that effective when a 1000 pound gorilla like the US Army turns up to play ... maybe. maybe not. the same army lost against stubborn Afghan shepherds. and before that against Vietnamese farmers.
The US military didn't lose. They had overwhelming tactical and technological superiority, 20:1 kill ratios, and consistently inflicted heavy casualties whenever they engaged the enemy directly. Now that didn't translate into accomplishing the political war goals of nation-building, changing cultures, and counter-insurgency without massive troop presence; but that wasn't a failure of the armed forces. What's that lin…
It's not enough to win all battles, if you still lose the war of attrition (and logistics, and politics, and hearts and minds, and so on).
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this one interesting: > “Vendors in the United States would laugh at us,” Hichwa said. American-made radios could cost $10,000 when he needed something for $30. The founders realized they’d have to build components themselves and seek suppliers outside the defense industry. Instead of using computer chips common in military equipment that cost hundreds of dollars, Neros used chips designed for parking meters…
But the parking meter chips are still made in China...
The article notes that this would violate Neros' requirements. Why do you think it's true?
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#75This was particularly interesting in regards to the US military not being at the bleeding edge: The trip underscored what they already knew: America was vulnerable. Russia and China produced millions of drones annually, while the United States barely made 100,000. It almost feels as if the US need(s|ed) to be a bit more involved in the Ukraine war in order to keep their finger on the pulse of how conflicts are evolvi…
>It almost feels as if the US need(s|ed) to be a bit more involved in the Ukraine war in order to keep their finger on the pulse of how conflicts are... This grates a little after the utter debacle of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya ... I'd go 180 degrees the other way. The US needs to be less involved so it can focus on the cancerous legal corruption of all the rackets. Without dealing with that the wrong things will alway…
Needless to say building the wrong things for the wrong reasons at huge expense is exactly what the military industrial complex wants and spends a great deal on influence to achieve.
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this one interesting: > “Vendors in the United States would laugh at us,” Hichwa said. American-made radios could cost $10,000 when he needed something for $30. The founders realized they’d have to build components themselves and seek suppliers outside the defense industry. Instead of using computer chips common in military equipment that cost hundreds of dollars, Neros used chips designed for parking meters…
It helps Lockheed Martin by preventing 21-year-olds from waltzing into the Pentagon and selling weapon systems to the DoD, allowing them to capture 300× more value than if they were subject to market competition.
Well, this is a requirement that gets passed through to Lockheed Martin and inflates their costs about as much as it inflates the Pentagon's costs. For Lockheed Martin to benefit, they need to be selling on a cost-plus basis, where lower efficiency mechanically means higher profit.
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It almost feels as if the US need(s|ed) to be a bit more involved in the Ukraine war in order to keep their finger on the pulse of how conflicts are evolving" This has nothing to do with keeping up with the intel from the conflict. This is entirely the product of our manufacturing issues. Manufacturing drove our success in WW2. Now we can't even manufacture low cost low(ish) tech drones at 1/10th the volume of poten…
We can, we just don't want to. Our military manufacturing volume was not very high before WW2. It wasn't until the potential adversaries became actual adversaries that we ramped it up. If a similar sort of nation-uniting threat arose, to the extent that we'd be willing to take extreme measures like halting all manufacturing of civilian automobiles, drone production could be massively increased. Of course, the problem…
I don't think we actually can due to the physical constraints. Things like drones require chips. Chip fabs are pretty rare in the US. There is a ceiling to how much we can produce until the production infrastructure can be increased. Then look at stuff like steel production vs imports. Even if we halt consumer products, the gap is too big. Building mines and smelters can take years.
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mortars miss; suicide drones don't. TBF based on Ukraines own statistics drones miss a lot as well.
I guess getting shot down is just as good as missing.
No, they miss a lot. ~5:1. But that still makes them cheaper than artillery rounds and they do a lot of damage and can do both recon and the subsequent attack with the same package, and without delay.
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess getting shot down is just as good as missing.
No, they miss a lot. ~5:1. But that still makes them cheaper than artillery rounds and they do a lot of damage and can do both recon and the subsequent attack with the same package, and without delay.
Hmm, I didn't realize. Do you mean ~5:1 is better than the miss ratio of artillery rounds, which makes them cheaper? Because I think a small FPV drone is about US$600 and an artillery round is about US$800, but that isn't a fact caused by the miss ratio.
Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps Lockheed Martin by preventing 21-year-olds from waltzing into the Pentagon and selling weapon systems to the DoD, allowing them to capture 300× more value than if they were subject to market competition.
Well, this is a requirement that gets passed through to Lockheed Martin and inflates their costs about as much as it inflates the Pentagon's costs. For Lockheed Martin to benefit, they need to be selling on a cost-plus basis, where lower efficiency mechanically means higher profit.
Guess how Lockheed Martin's contracts with the Pentagon are structured?