I will say this. First great exposé by Marat. Second, none of this comes as a surprise, the writings have been on the wall for at least the last couple of decades. Empire expending itself thin from over extending itself on the dubious allegations of being the best military in the world. In any competition when one of the teams or participants constantly chest thumps themselves, they are bound to believe their own hype and hence get sloppy.
This highlights the many problems Trump has to address. He may not be a creature of the Hill, but all he has to done is get the ball rolling. It begins with an unashamed realistic reflection on the true and actual state of affairs. It then requires pulling on all resources to begin the healing process. As such, the DC swamp has been held hostage by the naked emporer for too long. A certain toxic culture has rubbed off on even the most moderate to the best of them. So despite all the hooting and hollering thrown his way in terms of cabinet picks, when one is forced to consider between radical and pragmatic selections, one has to consider the available human resources. There isn't much left, or willing to serve their nation without ideological underpinnings. It's a shame but it is what it is. I wish he can prevail despite his predicament.
Here’s the deal. The government hires only affirmative action or DEI employees. Private industry also has to hire them also but keep them away from power. While the government gives the knuckleheads all the power. They are no match for the used car salesman selling them lemon after lemon. They also get great contracts keeping the junk running.
The first question is: can Starlink replace aeriel recon?
The 2nd question is: is Starlink providing equal or better capabilities than high orbital satellites?
The first question is obvious: clouds. Starlink and satellites both have problems with clouds, smoke, trees etc.
Satellites have ephemeri - which can be calculated and avoided.
Starlink theoretically removes the ephemeri issue but Starlink satellites are not reconnaissance platforms. They are signal receivers and re-transmitters. Some have cameras, but it is doubtful they can put in military grade cameras on every Starlink, although it would be very possible to seed a few military version Starlinks into an array.
The 2nd question is related to the cameras. Military grade high orbital satellites have fancy expensive telescopes and cameras - this is completely out of scope for normal Starlink operations. Adding this to every Starlink satellite would tremendously increase expense - and given the low lifespan of Starlink satellites (about 5 years), this does not seem to make economic sense - although economic sensibility has never been a hallmark of US military industrial production.
The large numbers of Starlink satellites are also a negative: if you have to put fancy optical systems on Starlink - the low lifespan and more or less uncontrolled reentry setups mean a real probability of this tech falling into other hands.
So net net: no, I don't see Starlink replacing aerial or satellite surveillance.
Even Starlink as a service: it is pretty damn expensive. $100 to $150 a month is a lot of money when fiber optic internet is $40 to $70.
It's all about the Benjamins, the C entury notes { $100 bills }. The largest MIC - Lockheed Martin manages all the US Embassies and Consolates in the World. There s a weapons dealer in every Embassy and most embassies have 2 or 5 floors below the 1st floor for storage, inventory?, security, etc. -so everything the " MIC/USG" does these days is all about losing and re-making - money. The population costs them money - weapons make them money - Who comes First ?
When your defense contractors are 1. Private companies 2. Duopoly 3. Unaccountable, then you end up with a shit defense. Can't believe they're going back to Bono and the Edge, crazy shit!
In 1993, I was living in Oslo, Norway. My Norwegian partner and I had a kid who was born 3 years earlier - he is now a doctor in the north of Norway.
The brother of my partner was a colonel in the Norwegian army. He was in their General Staff no less. He had a degree in Political Science. Something worth less than nothing in the physical world.
I had been to London's Imperial College twice. My first degree was in civil engineering. My higher degree was in Operations Research. I had been fascinated by model planes and boats all my life.
We met at a pub in the centre of Oslo. I rarely saw him as his job kept him out of the city.
I tried to explain to this moron that drones would change the shape of land warfare. I mean, it is obvious that the top of a tank - especially the hatch - is highly vulnerable to explosives. It is far thinner than the armour on the front of the tank. I told him that drones could be controlled remotely by wireless or by fibre optics. Of course, the electronics were much heavier in those days but it was certainly doable.
What I am getting at is that all armies without exception are staffed by people trained for the previous war. Quite unable to visualise the future. Let alone prepare for it. In the ongoing European war, the Ukrainians were initially far ahead of the Russians when it came to drones. It is only now, almost 3 years later, that the Russians are churning out these things like loaves of bread.
Drones have their place but to assume drones uber alles is wrong.
Nor is your assertion about Ukrainian "lead" in drones, the least bit credible. Philip Karber talked about the integration of reconnaissance drones into Russian infantry at the platoon level - built into their AFVs all the way back in 2014. Here is the video on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CMby_WPjk4&t=5s
Note he gave this talk in 2019 - 3 years BEFORE the SMO, and the talk is based on his firsthand experiences embedded with Ukrainian special forces fighting in Donbass in 2014 and 2015.
Nor is this the only data point. The Lancet drone, for example, premiered in 2020 and was already in service in the Russian army before the SMO.
The main reason Ukraine focused so much on small, handcrafted, repurposed civilian drones is their lack of MIC combined with massive destruction of weapons platforms associated with their having lost 4 or 5 full iterations of their army so far.
Furthermore, I do not find it the least bit credible that a hand-crafted DJI done with a grenade, or even an artillery shell on it (if they could even carry a large artillery shell, which I doubt), would do damage to a tank turret.
The main change with Russian drone usage is the adoption of the Shahed style drones - the Russian Geran. This is a change, but is an addition to the battlefield reconnaissance and attack done capabilities Russia already possesses and not a revolution.
The power of an explosive is dependent on the inverse of the square of the distance from the target. A 1kg explosion at 10cm is equivalent to 100kg at 100cm. Here is what AI has to say
--------------
Determining the amount of TNT needed to damage a tank turret involves several factors, including the turret's armour thickness, the type of explosive used, and the specific circumstances of the attack.
Factors Influencing Damage
1- Armor Thickness: Tank turrets are heavily armoured, with thickness varying significantly depending on the tank model. For instance, modern tanks may have armour exceeding 100 mm in thickness at critical points, making them resistant to many conventional explosives.
2- Placement and Method: The placement of the explosive is crucial. Direct hits on weak spots (like hatches or joints) or using tactics such as placing explosives underneath the tank can increase effectiveness. For example, placing TNT on a turret's cupola may yield better results than hitting the side armour.
General Estimates: While specific amounts can vary widely based on the above factors, anecdotal evidence suggests that around **1 to 2 kg of TNT** placed directly on vulnerable spots may damage lighter tanks. Heavier tanks might require significantly more—potentially **5 kg or more**—especially if relying solely on TNT without additional tactical support or combined arms.
- **Operational Context**: In real combat scenarios, using explosives like TNT often involves unpredictability due to factors such as armour quality and explosive placement. It is also noted that some players report inconsistent results when using TNT against tanks in various games, suggesting that luck and tactical execution play significant roles in determining damage outcomes.
In summary, while a rough estimate for damaging a tank turret with TNT could range from 1 kg for lighter tanks to over 5 kg for heavily armoured ones, actual effectiveness will depend heavily on tactical execution and specific tank characteristics.
Is the TNT in question in the form of a shaped charge, or just a blob?
Just curious. I'd guess it has to be a shaped charge, because otherwise most of the force simply goes in the direction of least resistance i.e. the air.
And if a shaped charge, this makes the attacking device, the angle of attack, speed of impact, etc a factor.
As for 1kg vs 5kg: a 155mm artillery shell has 10kg of TNT.
I am 99% sure the DJI drones cannot lift a 155mm artillery shell.
There are less than 30 U2 variants still in service. These could not replace ANY of the unmanned reconnaissance platforms AFAICT?!
I did find strange references to program requirements that unmanned systems be cheaper to operate than legacy U2s, which never happened. (The RQ4 costs about 3X as much per mission to fly?).
God only knows WHAT the Pentagon has going on here.
I think their motto is better to be seen doing something than nothing.
Not at all helpful when you're a generation, or two, behind in the arms race, well according to comrade Andrei Martyanov.
Still it beggars belief that Russia operating with around 10% of US military budget have developed integrated systems as opposed to a mish-mash of hand me downs.
Nothing is stupider and more forgetful than a peace time military. And nothing learns faster than whatever part of that military survives the opening shots of the next war.
I am not in any way a Pentagon insider, and in fact, I am just another retired American. But I will be 67 in a few days, and I have watched America over 6 decades now. What I try to bring home to people who live outside of America or younger Americans who did not know America before say 20 years ago is that America is rotting from the inside out (not a big revelation on this forum). Today, it's actually difficult for Americans to do what use to be relatively simple things. My parents (World War II) generation were immensely competent and focused people. They were not all angels, but they had a general sense of morality and would never entertained the woke US culture of today. This was a generation of grounded 'do-ers.' They did not waste their time with crap like DEI and CRT. Is there a silver lining here? Yes -unfortunately for me and other Americans, we will suffer through a huge depression here at some point - and the much of the world will hugely benefit because the hedgemon has finally filled its belly to bursting. If the US military industrial complex goes away, then it is a huge net benefit to the world. Yea - we still have some flag waving dummies here that think Americans killing people around the world is ok, but those people are slowly becoming irrelevant. Btw, don't expect too much from Trump - he seems to have this need to surround himself with neocons. He will be Biden light as far as Ukraine - but I hope I am wrong.
I will say this. First great exposé by Marat. Second, none of this comes as a surprise, the writings have been on the wall for at least the last couple of decades. Empire expending itself thin from over extending itself on the dubious allegations of being the best military in the world. In any competition when one of the teams or participants constantly chest thumps themselves, they are bound to believe their own hype and hence get sloppy.
This highlights the many problems Trump has to address. He may not be a creature of the Hill, but all he has to done is get the ball rolling. It begins with an unashamed realistic reflection on the true and actual state of affairs. It then requires pulling on all resources to begin the healing process. As such, the DC swamp has been held hostage by the naked emporer for too long. A certain toxic culture has rubbed off on even the most moderate to the best of them. So despite all the hooting and hollering thrown his way in terms of cabinet picks, when one is forced to consider between radical and pragmatic selections, one has to consider the available human resources. There isn't much left, or willing to serve their nation without ideological underpinnings. It's a shame but it is what it is. I wish he can prevail despite his predicament.
Great article Marat...🤑🤑🤑🤑
"American Intelligence". Isn't that an oxymoron?
Here’s the deal. The government hires only affirmative action or DEI employees. Private industry also has to hire them also but keep them away from power. While the government gives the knuckleheads all the power. They are no match for the used car salesman selling them lemon after lemon. They also get great contracts keeping the junk running.
Here's the deal: I'm an idiot.
Thanks for the essay.
Is there any possibility that they are setting up something like Starlink? A mass of low orbiting sattelites for reconnaissance / suveillance?
The first question is: can Starlink replace aeriel recon?
The 2nd question is: is Starlink providing equal or better capabilities than high orbital satellites?
The first question is obvious: clouds. Starlink and satellites both have problems with clouds, smoke, trees etc.
Satellites have ephemeri - which can be calculated and avoided.
Starlink theoretically removes the ephemeri issue but Starlink satellites are not reconnaissance platforms. They are signal receivers and re-transmitters. Some have cameras, but it is doubtful they can put in military grade cameras on every Starlink, although it would be very possible to seed a few military version Starlinks into an array.
The 2nd question is related to the cameras. Military grade high orbital satellites have fancy expensive telescopes and cameras - this is completely out of scope for normal Starlink operations. Adding this to every Starlink satellite would tremendously increase expense - and given the low lifespan of Starlink satellites (about 5 years), this does not seem to make economic sense - although economic sensibility has never been a hallmark of US military industrial production.
The large numbers of Starlink satellites are also a negative: if you have to put fancy optical systems on Starlink - the low lifespan and more or less uncontrolled reentry setups mean a real probability of this tech falling into other hands.
So net net: no, I don't see Starlink replacing aerial or satellite surveillance.
Even Starlink as a service: it is pretty damn expensive. $100 to $150 a month is a lot of money when fiber optic internet is $40 to $70.
It's all about the Benjamins, the C entury notes { $100 bills }. The largest MIC - Lockheed Martin manages all the US Embassies and Consolates in the World. There s a weapons dealer in every Embassy and most embassies have 2 or 5 floors below the 1st floor for storage, inventory?, security, etc. -so everything the " MIC/USG" does these days is all about losing and re-making - money. The population costs them money - weapons make them money - Who comes First ?
When your defense contractors are 1. Private companies 2. Duopoly 3. Unaccountable, then you end up with a shit defense. Can't believe they're going back to Bono and the Edge, crazy shit!
Good and timely update. Thanks 👍
In 1993, I was living in Oslo, Norway. My Norwegian partner and I had a kid who was born 3 years earlier - he is now a doctor in the north of Norway.
The brother of my partner was a colonel in the Norwegian army. He was in their General Staff no less. He had a degree in Political Science. Something worth less than nothing in the physical world.
I had been to London's Imperial College twice. My first degree was in civil engineering. My higher degree was in Operations Research. I had been fascinated by model planes and boats all my life.
We met at a pub in the centre of Oslo. I rarely saw him as his job kept him out of the city.
I tried to explain to this moron that drones would change the shape of land warfare. I mean, it is obvious that the top of a tank - especially the hatch - is highly vulnerable to explosives. It is far thinner than the armour on the front of the tank. I told him that drones could be controlled remotely by wireless or by fibre optics. Of course, the electronics were much heavier in those days but it was certainly doable.
What I am getting at is that all armies without exception are staffed by people trained for the previous war. Quite unable to visualise the future. Let alone prepare for it. In the ongoing European war, the Ukrainians were initially far ahead of the Russians when it came to drones. It is only now, almost 3 years later, that the Russians are churning out these things like loaves of bread.
Drones have their place but to assume drones uber alles is wrong.
Nor is your assertion about Ukrainian "lead" in drones, the least bit credible. Philip Karber talked about the integration of reconnaissance drones into Russian infantry at the platoon level - built into their AFVs all the way back in 2014. Here is the video on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CMby_WPjk4&t=5s
Note he gave this talk in 2019 - 3 years BEFORE the SMO, and the talk is based on his firsthand experiences embedded with Ukrainian special forces fighting in Donbass in 2014 and 2015.
Nor is this the only data point. The Lancet drone, for example, premiered in 2020 and was already in service in the Russian army before the SMO.
The main reason Ukraine focused so much on small, handcrafted, repurposed civilian drones is their lack of MIC combined with massive destruction of weapons platforms associated with their having lost 4 or 5 full iterations of their army so far.
Furthermore, I do not find it the least bit credible that a hand-crafted DJI done with a grenade, or even an artillery shell on it (if they could even carry a large artillery shell, which I doubt), would do damage to a tank turret.
The main change with Russian drone usage is the adoption of the Shahed style drones - the Russian Geran. This is a change, but is an addition to the battlefield reconnaissance and attack done capabilities Russia already possesses and not a revolution.
Thank you for that.
The power of an explosive is dependent on the inverse of the square of the distance from the target. A 1kg explosion at 10cm is equivalent to 100kg at 100cm. Here is what AI has to say
--------------
Determining the amount of TNT needed to damage a tank turret involves several factors, including the turret's armour thickness, the type of explosive used, and the specific circumstances of the attack.
Factors Influencing Damage
1- Armor Thickness: Tank turrets are heavily armoured, with thickness varying significantly depending on the tank model. For instance, modern tanks may have armour exceeding 100 mm in thickness at critical points, making them resistant to many conventional explosives.
2- Placement and Method: The placement of the explosive is crucial. Direct hits on weak spots (like hatches or joints) or using tactics such as placing explosives underneath the tank can increase effectiveness. For example, placing TNT on a turret's cupola may yield better results than hitting the side armour.
General Estimates: While specific amounts can vary widely based on the above factors, anecdotal evidence suggests that around **1 to 2 kg of TNT** placed directly on vulnerable spots may damage lighter tanks. Heavier tanks might require significantly more—potentially **5 kg or more**—especially if relying solely on TNT without additional tactical support or combined arms.
- **Operational Context**: In real combat scenarios, using explosives like TNT often involves unpredictability due to factors such as armour quality and explosive placement. It is also noted that some players report inconsistent results when using TNT against tanks in various games, suggesting that luck and tactical execution play significant roles in determining damage outcomes.
In summary, while a rough estimate for damaging a tank turret with TNT could range from 1 kg for lighter tanks to over 5 kg for heavily armoured ones, actual effectiveness will depend heavily on tactical execution and specific tank characteristics.
Is the TNT in question in the form of a shaped charge, or just a blob?
Just curious. I'd guess it has to be a shaped charge, because otherwise most of the force simply goes in the direction of least resistance i.e. the air.
And if a shaped charge, this makes the attacking device, the angle of attack, speed of impact, etc a factor.
As for 1kg vs 5kg: a 155mm artillery shell has 10kg of TNT.
I am 99% sure the DJI drones cannot lift a 155mm artillery shell.
The GAO reports point to a very low level of readiness. Does anyone really read them? Looking at the trend I'd say no.
My working theory is: The MBA (Master's of Business Adminstration) is the fall of Empire.
Restating it: The calculus of short term thinking describes an arc circling the drain.
There are less than 30 U2 variants still in service. These could not replace ANY of the unmanned reconnaissance platforms AFAICT?!
I did find strange references to program requirements that unmanned systems be cheaper to operate than legacy U2s, which never happened. (The RQ4 costs about 3X as much per mission to fly?).
God only knows WHAT the Pentagon has going on here.
I think their motto is better to be seen doing something than nothing.
Not at all helpful when you're a generation, or two, behind in the arms race, well according to comrade Andrei Martyanov.
Still it beggars belief that Russia operating with around 10% of US military budget have developed integrated systems as opposed to a mish-mash of hand me downs.
Nothing is stupider and more forgetful than a peace time military. And nothing learns faster than whatever part of that military survives the opening shots of the next war.
How much longer before this reality (costs and obsolescence) finally drowns out the crowning narrative of their power for everyone and for all time?
In the direction of conceptual groundwork for US-Americans looking at "What do we do now?, there is this: https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/trying-to-distill-the-necessities
I am not in any way a Pentagon insider, and in fact, I am just another retired American. But I will be 67 in a few days, and I have watched America over 6 decades now. What I try to bring home to people who live outside of America or younger Americans who did not know America before say 20 years ago is that America is rotting from the inside out (not a big revelation on this forum). Today, it's actually difficult for Americans to do what use to be relatively simple things. My parents (World War II) generation were immensely competent and focused people. They were not all angels, but they had a general sense of morality and would never entertained the woke US culture of today. This was a generation of grounded 'do-ers.' They did not waste their time with crap like DEI and CRT. Is there a silver lining here? Yes -unfortunately for me and other Americans, we will suffer through a huge depression here at some point - and the much of the world will hugely benefit because the hedgemon has finally filled its belly to bursting. If the US military industrial complex goes away, then it is a huge net benefit to the world. Yea - we still have some flag waving dummies here that think Americans killing people around the world is ok, but those people are slowly becoming irrelevant. Btw, don't expect too much from Trump - he seems to have this need to surround himself with neocons. He will be Biden light as far as Ukraine - but I hope I am wrong.
News Flash - Russian jet ejaculates on US Grim Reaper.
Bill Clinton advising on the clean-up!