JonS

Yeah, the Geneva conventions (or, more relevant in this case, the Geneva protocol and tangentially the Hague conventions and the 1980 convention) are all about inter-state conflict. What happens intra-state, between you and your local law enforcement body, is entirely a matter for you and your respective legislature to figure out. 'Geneva' doesn't care a whit. (Multiple edits: bloody sbellçzech)

The dose makes the poison. Looking from the outside, there is absolutely zero equivalence between the two parties. None at all. There are ... odd individuals in both, but at the party level only one is utterly dysfunctional. Theres also this inconvenient reality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Yeah, obviously I dunno either. Knackered wiring loom, maybe? Heat-damaged chassis member?

US design for maintainability is generally pretty excellent. It makes for expensive procurement and high maintenance budgets (ie, swap the entire Abrams power pack rather than fix the fault lòcally) but it does that in order to increase availability rates at the pointy end. Given that general approach, I'd be surprised if the Patriot was an exception. Given *that* I'd assume there is more internal damage that both can't be seen in a photo and can't be fixed in Ukraine. Or, alternately, the priority to date has been on pushing end-user equipment into Ukraine, and not on the support systems that keep them operational and in users hands. Edit: So what would be a simple field repair for a US unit has to go back to the States when its operated by Ukraine. But weighing against that second conclusion is the existence of USAREUR; if it was conceivably fixable forward at Grafenwohr or Kaiserlauten (or by any of the European operators of Patriot) then they would. That it wasn't suggests significant but non-obvious damage. I think.

Presumably this is only true at fairly high latitudes - north of 45°N or south of 45°S?

I mean ... I think that's a joke? But with MT "Empty" Greene (proud veteran of the Bowling Green Massacre) it's really really hard to be sure. That is bat**** enough to have actually leaked out of her ears. Edit: oh FFS. Those really were among the proposals she submitted

The one thing that the US is indisputably great at is logistics. I would say "days".

human autonomous, I suppose, but not machine autonomous. The point, and Tux noted, is that the purpose of autonomy is not to show off how l337 ur hax0rz are, but to preclude the need for comms which can be jammed, spoofed, and targetted.

You mean like a strike package? With some flying CAP, others on EW, some clearing the route in, a couple providing oversight and a comms rebro and BDA, some SEAD, and of course some bearing warheads and payloads? Yeah, of course. That all sounds clever and sensible, especially since it's already proven doctrinal approach to getting aerial effects delivery systems into an AO. It doesn't sound simple or cheap though.

Ok, there's a couple if things to unpack here. Firstly, if they're communicating then they aren't autonomous. Heretofore autonomy has been touted as the nirvana to avoid countermeasures, and therefore assumed as a feature. I'm not going to say the autonomists are right and the communicators are wrong, or vice versa. What I will say - again - is that drones will continue to be full of compromises, will not solve all problems, nor invalidate all existing capabilities. Secondly, "designing" is carrying a bit of weight. My beaver-tailed compadre just recently got a bit pissy about historical precedents because apparently we're only allowed to talk about *this* war, and yet here you are talking about the *next* war, or at least this war next year. More seriously: yes, you probably could improve both accuracy and precision that way (although you seem to be trying to avoid over-killing each targets by avoiding multiple drones attacking the same target, rather than reducing per-drone aiming errors?), but 'we could' is not the same as 'we are.'

Yes, but there is no feedback loop between one autonomous drone and the next, in the way that there is between subsequent rounds from a rifle.

Yes, but it's not like you can back that drone up and try again if the first hit wasn't where you wanted it.

Because I'm not a fan of magic thinking. Look, I have repeatedly said drones are great. But I *also* know they have drawbacks, limitations, and vulnerabilities. Pretending they don't, pretending they can do everything, isn't especially helpful.

It's not four VOG-15s?

Yeah, nah. I'm assuming accuracy as a given (I'm not sure precision is relevant here)