Some off topic posts are okay, but please prefix them 'OT:' in the subject.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 3
I read an article recently that we have been training our troops wrong. Ukrainian soldiers are using much different tactics, and NATO tactics would be getting them killed. At least a part of this is the presence of drones. A Ukrainian official has said that if someone or something breaks cover, they will be targeted in less than 10 minutes, and fire will be incoming. I read another article that Russia is taking a lot of losses in their Black Sea fleet, and Ukraine has no navy. Drones, again.
And then Perun did a video essay on drones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0L5Wv86fQ&t=359sBrave new world.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Vital information for the US to incorporate into its weapons procurement strategies. I'm worried that right now, our "experts" are telling Ukraine, "Look, you're winning the war all wrong..."
Anyone watching what is going on in Ukraine who still thinks the US needs to be building new $250 million dollar fighters, $692 million stealth bombers or THIRTEEN BILLION DOLLAR aircraft carriers has no business being in Congress or in the Pentagon. The "lethality ratio" between spending a couple of million dollars per unmanned drone versus a multi-billion dollar carrier that requires 4500 people to operate it is easily 10x to 100x. When you factor in the reality that you can't just buy ONE $13 billion carrier and get its capabilities, the comparison gets worse. To PROVIDE that carrier capability you need THREE of them -- one to operate, a second to be docked for routine refurbishing and maintenance and a third that will be undergoing more extensive maintenance.
The US is literally bankrupting itself stuffing the pockets of the military industrial complex executives designing and building weapons for re-fighting World War II and Vietnam.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 0
US and NATO doctrine is to establish complete air and signals supremacy over a battlefield. That means, nothing flies or is able to communicate unless it's on the blue team.
The Russkies were never able to knock out the Ukrainian Air Force and they've never been able to take out the Ukrainians' ability to communicate back and forth. They can still use cell phones and satellite internet. So with that they can fly their drones around at will and take all the pictures of the Russian defensive positions, then direct other attacks.
In a US conflict those drones would be jammed and attempted to be shot down with a variety of systems. We learned the hard way in Iraq how to detonate IEDs by jamming cell phone signals and/or directing multifrequency signals at the bombs to make them go off.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you watch the video, a lot of effort is being directed towards "loyal wingman" programs. Many nations, not just the US. Basically, you spend on the really expensive fighters, but you also spend on cheaper drones to pair with the fighters (or other platforms). Drones to be used as decoys, or spotters, or weapons platforms.
We're already doing some of that, though in a manned setting. We've ordered a large number of a variant of F15. It's job is basically to stand off and become a missile platform, directed by other more advanced fighters closer to the engagement area. That way the F15 is less vulnerable (because in a modern contested area, it wouldn't stand a chance), and the fighters in that contested area don't have to give up stealth for larger munitions loads. We're now looking (and developing) drones that can do that also. And China is. Russia has two (exactly 2!) such drones they could field today.
The US apparently is more transparent about their plans. But we know China and Russia are working on the same sort of schemes, even if they don't publish much about them.
But the really small and cheap drones have resculpted the battlefield, because you dare not stick your head out lest you invite a fire mission on your location. Realistically, some of that could be jammed. Though I doubt you could bathe an area in jamming 24/7/365. And that doesn't include naval warfare, where cheap drones are making mincemeat of the Black Sea fleet (and, as I recall, the Crimea bridge). The Ukrainians are making use of drone speedboats packed with explosives. Low profile, difficult to detect. Which could be a threat to US carriers, though the usual mission of a carrier is to stand off in blue water and launch lots of aircraft to reach out and touch the enemy. I doubt they would be in range of the drone speedboats, unless we send them into a very small body of water (e.g. Persian Gulf, Black Sea). The carrier is our primary method of extending military power/presence. Otherwise you have to send aircraft ridiculously long distances (with multiple midair refuels) to strike a target. Not really practical.
No. of Recommendations: 2
WTH,
The US military planners are far from dumb. Civilian leadership is a different kettle of fish.
The US is developing and already has developed and fielded multiple types of drones. Cheap attritable ones (SUASes), slightly more sophisticated "pickup trucks" useful for multiple roles like ISR, launching missiles, MUM-T(manned unmanned teaming), lumbering behemoths fir refueling, highly autonomous ones that don't care about jamming, etc.
Even aircraft carriers are being converted to be basically mobile drone launchers.
Military planners are very aware of the different theaters of war and have gamed out possible conflicts. What works in the Middle East won't work in Europe or the Pacific theater, for example. So the DoD is trying to fund programs accordingly. But then there is Congress...
