The_Capt

Forget it Steve, no point debating with a position that is a single dot. Despite mountains of evidence: tanks = firepower, wars need firepower...etc. Firepower is being disaggregated into a lethal mist all over the battlefield. But hey, let's keep pouring billions into old heavy concentrated firepower while hoping EW and magic sky guns can somehow keep it in the game. 
And yet, we are the unreasonable ones in all this. It is hilarious actually. I am reading Dreadnought by Massie. The biggest opponents to steel mast-less engine driven ships - the Royal Navy. Biggest opponents to Fisher's ideas on modern gunnery - the RN. Biggest opponents to the all-big gun ships - the RN. And this was during the 19th century. Now in the 21st we are just seeing it all over again.

My honest assessment is, no. You are describing the normal military force development process when it comes to emerging technologies. We saw this in history from mech/armour to airplanes, to battleships. Everyone starts small in order to hedge, and then upscales. Early adopters have to pay the "fail'" costs, those who wait reap the benefits. 
Problem with drones, as we are seeing in this war, is that scale matters. So having an experimental Battalion to learn some tactical lessons etc is only going to carry so far. That battalion will not provide many insights at how a brigade or division will perform, nor drive strategic and operational thinking. Drones are not small cute "neato" packages. They are opening up another dimension of warfare - synthetic airpower. Very soon they will be able to create "synthetic surface power". That takes widescale experimentation at an operational level at least. Late adopters will be left behind when we get to things like AI integration and mass swarming as a form of modern manoeuvre.
Given that military funding is always a zero sum game, until it is too late. This means that conservative militaries will be at a distinct disadvantage. They will be learning to walk while others are running. Every time this sort of thing happens, a military of the day has to decide if this is just a change to the old game, or a new game. You can guess which one they normally pick.
So investing billions in legacy systems is risky as it pulls funding from the emerging disruptive systems. Of course leaning too far forward is also risk. So the question really is: "how much risk do you want to take?"
    

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.
Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.
Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

Forget it Steve, no point debating with a position that is a single dot. Despite mountains of evidence: tanks = firepower, wars need firepower...etc. Firepower is being disaggregated into a lethal mist all over the battlefield. But hey, let's keep pouring billions into old heavy concentrated firepower while hoping EW and magic sky guns can somehow keep it in the game. 
And yet, we are the unreasonable ones in all this. It is hilarious actually. I am reading Dreadnought by Massie. The biggest opponents to steel mast-less engine driven ships - the Royal Navy. Biggest opponents to Fisher's ideas on modern gunnery - the RN. Biggest opponents to the all-big gun ships - the RN. And this was during the 19th century. Now in the 21st we are just seeing it all over again.

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.
Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.
Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

Notice that a few hundred videos of FPV strikes are “isolated incidents taken out of context that do not prove anything.” While a single tank action every few months is “not bad for an obsolete vehicle”?

Notice that a few hundred videos of FPV strikes are “isolated incidents taken out of context that do not prove anything.” While a single tank action every few months is “not bad for an obsolete vehicle”?

And you don't?
I served in the Canadian military for 36 years. Working strategic force development and procurement that crossed international lines. No ones hands are clean. Cold War ended and everyone wanted to get richer in the afterparty. We are now in the hangover. 
Now I do know of a lot of companies that wanted to "look clean." They put a lot of effort into that. 

There it is. Welcome to globalization. We dumped stuff on the Chinese to make cheaper, so we could keep our profit margin up...what could possibly go wrong?

Doesn’t really need to be accurate. In fact most small arms fire on the battlefield is laughably inaccurate. It is that direct small arms fire can come at you on the ground from any direction at any time. The suppressive effect of this is very good. Once suppressed the platform with the gun can then call in accurate indirect fires or send in the grenade dropping/FPVs.
Now put twenty of these into the air and you have volume suppression. This highlights something we are just beginning to see - UAS integration into a new combined arms. Drones right now are sent out as individual strike packages. Mixing and matching of fires on those packages (direct, grenades, AT, incendiary etc) in combinations that project dilemmas is really just emerging.

Hey guys, 
  All I can say right now is that we are at the top of the CMx2 queue...in fact we are the top of the CMx2 work pile. We will see if we can make it for this year, but we are talking weeks/months, not years.

I miss that weird little guy to be honest. Remember the German mannequin? Gawd, this place was a lot more fun back then. 

Yeesh, the video does not mention foreign manufacture...that makes it worse. This was homegrown American made corruption.
Well if we are going to open this up to "MICs screwing government" we can go back a lot further.
https://dailynews.mcmaster.ca/articles/soup-can-reopens-mystery-of-doomed-franklin-expedition/

Notice that a few hundred videos of FPV strikes are “isolated incidents taken out of context that do not prove anything.” While a single tank action every few months is “not bad for an obsolete vehicle”?

My oh my, you are touchier than LongLefty on a Sunday morning today. I have no idea whether you are or are not. I do know that everyone has an agenda of some shape or size. They are the filters we place on reality. The tricky part is 1) knowing they are there, and 2) seeing past them.
It is also why depending on opinion and ones own perspective/experience is tricky. I saw plenty of evidence of us selling out to the Chinese, but I am not going to think of that as fact without doing some research first. And lo and behold...it would appear that supply chain vulnerabilities are alive and well. Other sources do a pretty good job out outlining how US parts wind up in Russian missiles, which corroborate the effect of wider globalization of supply chains worldwide.
So that all tells me that despite your experience, supply chain dependence on China is very likely still happening. While your experience has weight, it does not carry in the face of all the other issues. Now the B2 was a pretty freakin high end strategic hedge platform e.g the US ain't selling it. So perhaps the controls on that single platform were tight. But that don't mean a damned thing if the entire US C4ISR targeting architecture is maggoty with Chinese semi-conductors...now does it? Kind hard to know where to point that sexy beast when the ISR is polluted, and precision weapons it carries are also spotty.      

Then you were a lone beacon in the darkness, apparently:
https://www.americansecurityproject.org/us-defense-supplies-china/
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-armed-services-committee-releases-report-on-counterfeit-electronic-parts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/01/09/americas-carriers-rely-on-chinese-chips-our-depleted-munitions-too/

Well you could read up on it a bit. Or jump to heavily biased pre-constructed conclusions:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/back-stock-state-russias-defense-industry-after-two-years-war
(Part 2 btw)
 

There it is. Welcome to globalization. We dumped stuff on the Chinese to make cheaper, so we could keep our profit margin up...what could possibly go wrong?

Hey guys, 
  All I can say right now is that we are at the top of the CMx2 queue...in fact we are the top of the CMx2 work pile. We will see if we can make it for this year, but we are talking weeks/months, not years.

There it is. Welcome to globalization. We dumped stuff on the Chinese to make cheaper, so we could keep our profit margin up...what could possibly go wrong?

Notice that a few hundred videos of FPV strikes are “isolated incidents taken out of context that do not prove anything.” While a single tank action every few months is “not bad for an obsolete vehicle”?

And you don't?
I served in the Canadian military for 36 years. Working strategic force development and procurement that crossed international lines. No ones hands are clean. Cold War ended and everyone wanted to get richer in the afterparty. We are now in the hangover. 
Now I do know of a lot of companies that wanted to "look clean." They put a lot of effort into that. 

Notice that a few hundred videos of FPV strikes are “isolated incidents taken out of context that do not prove anything.” While a single tank action every few months is “not bad for an obsolete vehicle”?