A lot of talk about very remote operators for drones instead of close proximity operators. But don't forget electronic counter measures that could interfere with such operation quite successfully. So the use of drones, while definitely a new attribute of warfare, has its accompanying complications. This is very typical of the history of warfare. A new technology is introduced and counter measures are quickly adopted or the idea is at least copied and stalemate is established again. I think Simplicius is saying this has happened and the world does not have a clue. Does anyone remember Spock explaining that to Capt. Kirk about the Romulan cloaking device? :)
That was a pretty terrifying read and explains the "lonely battlefield" syndrome: everyone's hiding away from the all-seeing drones. It also explains why the Russians are advancing slowly and carefully. Meanwhile, has anyone else noticed the growing absence of a weapons system that was once called the Queen of the Battlefield? There are very few tanks around these days on the battlefield. All those multi-million dollar Abrams and Challengers that were going to win the war for the West have been destroyed or scared away by cheap IKEA drones.
Trump announced the F-47 next generation fighter award - to Boeing. This fighter is supposed to ensure US dominance and strike fear in our enemies. Will it be like the F-35, a $2T boondoggle whose mission capable rate is said to be around 25%?
The nature of warfare is changing. Our military planners should be focused on what will be important to win wars in the future. What will be the role of drones and artillery? Can we afford manned fighters that can be easily shot down with air defenses? What should our force composition be?
This shows that the West has learned nothing from Vietnam and every conflict since. Bigger and more expensive doesn't mean better. Manned fighters, aircraft carriers and even tanks will soon go the way of the crossbow and sabre.
We can talk about drones all you want, and the technology has certainly improved great deal.
But I tend to focus on the fact that Russia has technologically more advanced missile systems than the United States and NATO.
So far, Putin has used those rather sparingly, but if it comes down to it, he could literally destroy the rest of Ukraine with hypersonic missiles and kinetic energy bombs. On top of that he could take out key NATO installations with the same technology. Don’t think for a moment that he would loan that technology to Iran to finally make an example out of Israel and take it out completely.
The interesting part about all of that is Russia doesn’t have to use nuclear weapons to achieve its goals. The kinetic energy bomb is the breakthrough weapon. Now that will do the same kind of destruction, but with no residual radiation problems.
I don’t think our military experts are looking at that close enough. We don’t have that technology. We don’t have the capability of coming up with it anytime soon. We are having problems just trying to resupply all of the mutations and arms that we have given Ukraine and Israel over the last three years that have depleted our resources. We do not have the manufacturing base at this point to manufacture all of the replacements we need plus extra if we were to try to stage a field army anywhere.
Actually we do, but it's not well known as yet. Major wars of the future will not be waged on the battlefields of the past in which soldiers meet in mortal combat. Nation versus nation in existential conflict will be waged against each other's infrastructure; primarily energy supply, transportation, and communications. And the destructive weapons that accomplish these attacks will be kinetic, hypersonic, and launched from orbit. They will be precision guided, maneuverable, and non-nuclear (think Oreshnik only from low orbit). Refineries, electrical generation stations, communications systems, bridges, ports, and pipelines will cease to function overnight and in one fell swoop. The threat alone will keep hot conflict at bay, as in the Cold War's Mutually Assured Destruction. Precision from above is the game-changer when the cost of the gravimetric reentry bomb is negligible. As yes, this technology is right out of the science fiction novels of the 1950s.
The Russian drone advances make sense, with a lot of it was initially catching up and using Iranian drone ip. Russia has moved beyond that.
The advances on the Ukrainian side drone wise I wonder whom is doing the R&D. I’m guessing key components are manufactured in the West, and assembled in the Ukraine. This is a massive manufacturing program.
Initially a lot of drones used were the larger DJI, and modified for military use. My guess is both sides have moved beyond that.
The definition of drone vs missile seems to be getting a bit blurred, as the technology advances.
That's one of the many outstanding ironies of this conflict: decades on from the Cold War it's now we who are the godless communists. You couldn't make it up.
And yet he's not negotiating--just talking. And, of course, talking is a good thing.
The other side of Simplicius' coin is that drones ultimately need operators, and the Russians are killing them in large numbers. If the drones end up being controlled from sites outside Ukraine--technically non-problematic--then those countries will have gone beyond proxy participation. The situation right now is that trained Ukrainian personnel are being killed off ("attritted") in large numbers and so this situation can't continue indefinitely. I presume this is the reasoning, or something like it, behind the Russian confidence. That and their ability to escalate--which Putin openly mentioned in his talks with Trump.
A lot of talk about very remote operators for drones instead of close proximity operators. But don't forget electronic counter measures that could interfere with such operation quite successfully. So the use of drones, while definitely a new attribute of warfare, has its accompanying complications. This is very typical of the history of warfare. A new technology is introduced and counter measures are quickly adopted or the idea is at least copied and stalemate is established again. I think Simplicius is saying this has happened and the world does not have a clue. Does anyone remember Spock explaining that to Capt. Kirk about the Romulan cloaking device? :)
That was a pretty terrifying read and explains the "lonely battlefield" syndrome: everyone's hiding away from the all-seeing drones. It also explains why the Russians are advancing slowly and carefully. Meanwhile, has anyone else noticed the growing absence of a weapons system that was once called the Queen of the Battlefield? There are very few tanks around these days on the battlefield. All those multi-million dollar Abrams and Challengers that were going to win the war for the West have been destroyed or scared away by cheap IKEA drones.
Trump announced the F-47 next generation fighter award - to Boeing. This fighter is supposed to ensure US dominance and strike fear in our enemies. Will it be like the F-35, a $2T boondoggle whose mission capable rate is said to be around 25%?
The nature of warfare is changing. Our military planners should be focused on what will be important to win wars in the future. What will be the role of drones and artillery? Can we afford manned fighters that can be easily shot down with air defenses? What should our force composition be?
Here's a good and recent post from Will Schryver (https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/scorch-marks-in-the-sand).
This shows that the West has learned nothing from Vietnam and every conflict since. Bigger and more expensive doesn't mean better. Manned fighters, aircraft carriers and even tanks will soon go the way of the crossbow and sabre.
It shouldn’t be underestimated just how many drones the globe is supplying Ukraine. A factory down the road from me in Australia is supplying drones.
We can talk about drones all you want, and the technology has certainly improved great deal.
But I tend to focus on the fact that Russia has technologically more advanced missile systems than the United States and NATO.
So far, Putin has used those rather sparingly, but if it comes down to it, he could literally destroy the rest of Ukraine with hypersonic missiles and kinetic energy bombs. On top of that he could take out key NATO installations with the same technology. Don’t think for a moment that he would loan that technology to Iran to finally make an example out of Israel and take it out completely.
The interesting part about all of that is Russia doesn’t have to use nuclear weapons to achieve its goals. The kinetic energy bomb is the breakthrough weapon. Now that will do the same kind of destruction, but with no residual radiation problems.
I don’t think our military experts are looking at that close enough. We don’t have that technology. We don’t have the capability of coming up with it anytime soon. We are having problems just trying to resupply all of the mutations and arms that we have given Ukraine and Israel over the last three years that have depleted our resources. We do not have the manufacturing base at this point to manufacture all of the replacements we need plus extra if we were to try to stage a field army anywhere.
Actually we do, but it's not well known as yet. Major wars of the future will not be waged on the battlefields of the past in which soldiers meet in mortal combat. Nation versus nation in existential conflict will be waged against each other's infrastructure; primarily energy supply, transportation, and communications. And the destructive weapons that accomplish these attacks will be kinetic, hypersonic, and launched from orbit. They will be precision guided, maneuverable, and non-nuclear (think Oreshnik only from low orbit). Refineries, electrical generation stations, communications systems, bridges, ports, and pipelines will cease to function overnight and in one fell swoop. The threat alone will keep hot conflict at bay, as in the Cold War's Mutually Assured Destruction. Precision from above is the game-changer when the cost of the gravimetric reentry bomb is negligible. As yes, this technology is right out of the science fiction novels of the 1950s.
Put it this way, there must be a reason why the Russians seem so increasingly confident.
The Russian drone advances make sense, with a lot of it was initially catching up and using Iranian drone ip. Russia has moved beyond that.
The advances on the Ukrainian side drone wise I wonder whom is doing the R&D. I’m guessing key components are manufactured in the West, and assembled in the Ukraine. This is a massive manufacturing program.
Initially a lot of drones used were the larger DJI, and modified for military use. My guess is both sides have moved beyond that.
The definition of drone vs missile seems to be getting a bit blurred, as the technology advances.
.
Of Interest Perhaps
I had read a while ago that drones in Ukraine could be controlled
from couches in the US
One would need only a person in the UA to set the drone up and turn it on
.
All our drone control is situated in Nevada. That’s where the pilots are.
U.S. drones in Afghanistan were controlled from the U.S.
It may and I understood was already happening/tested.
Putin has paced his military with the support of his public.
Initially hesitant to fight their neighbors and fellow countrymen.
Russia has the firepower to whip everyone and will if needed.
Putin has built 30,000 Churches since Jan 2000.
He has publicly vowed to defend Christian Russia with his entire nuclear arsenal.
Fair Warning
That's one of the many outstanding ironies of this conflict: decades on from the Cold War it's now we who are the godless communists. You couldn't make it up.
And yet he's not negotiating--just talking. And, of course, talking is a good thing.
The other side of Simplicius' coin is that drones ultimately need operators, and the Russians are killing them in large numbers. If the drones end up being controlled from sites outside Ukraine--technically non-problematic--then those countries will have gone beyond proxy participation. The situation right now is that trained Ukrainian personnel are being killed off ("attritted") in large numbers and so this situation can't continue indefinitely. I presume this is the reasoning, or something like it, behind the Russian confidence. That and their ability to escalate--which Putin openly mentioned in his talks with Trump.