sross112

I think service should be voluntary until that alone doesn't fill the need. When volunteers can't cover it, then the draft is perfectly fine. I agree that those that are pacifist or conscientious objectors should be allowed to fulfil non combat roles. I personally don't want to be in a foxhole next to someone who isn't there to fight, and believe that anyone else on the line would have the same opinion. With that being said, anyone who fails to answer the call and flees their country should have their citizenship revoked for life and not be allowed back in for any reason. I know it sounds harsh, but especially in an existential conflict like this one I think it is fitting. It is your choice to flee, but in doing so you should no longer get to identify with that country or nationality. It is an insult to all of those that stay and suffer, whether in the military or not, for that person to continue to have the rights of the others without shouldering the responsibility.
As the CPT said, there seems to be a disconnect between rights and responsibilities in a lot of nations nowadays. Freedom isn't free and those rights come with a price tag from time to time. 

I think service should be voluntary until that alone doesn't fill the need. When volunteers can't cover it, then the draft is perfectly fine. I agree that those that are pacifist or conscientious objectors should be allowed to fulfil non combat roles. I personally don't want to be in a foxhole next to someone who isn't there to fight, and believe that anyone else on the line would have the same opinion. With that being said, anyone who fails to answer the call and flees their country should have their citizenship revoked for life and not be allowed back in for any reason. I know it sounds harsh, but especially in an existential conflict like this one I think it is fitting. It is your choice to flee, but in doing so you should no longer get to identify with that country or nationality. It is an insult to all of those that stay and suffer, whether in the military or not, for that person to continue to have the rights of the others without shouldering the responsibility.
As the CPT said, there seems to be a disconnect between rights and responsibilities in a lot of nations nowadays. Freedom isn't free and those rights come with a price tag from time to time. 

I think service should be voluntary until that alone doesn't fill the need. When volunteers can't cover it, then the draft is perfectly fine. I agree that those that are pacifist or conscientious objectors should be allowed to fulfil non combat roles. I personally don't want to be in a foxhole next to someone who isn't there to fight, and believe that anyone else on the line would have the same opinion. With that being said, anyone who fails to answer the call and flees their country should have their citizenship revoked for life and not be allowed back in for any reason. I know it sounds harsh, but especially in an existential conflict like this one I think it is fitting. It is your choice to flee, but in doing so you should no longer get to identify with that country or nationality. It is an insult to all of those that stay and suffer, whether in the military or not, for that person to continue to have the rights of the others without shouldering the responsibility.
As the CPT said, there seems to be a disconnect between rights and responsibilities in a lot of nations nowadays. Freedom isn't free and those rights come with a price tag from time to time. 

I think service should be voluntary until that alone doesn't fill the need. When volunteers can't cover it, then the draft is perfectly fine. I agree that those that are pacifist or conscientious objectors should be allowed to fulfil non combat roles. I personally don't want to be in a foxhole next to someone who isn't there to fight, and believe that anyone else on the line would have the same opinion. With that being said, anyone who fails to answer the call and flees their country should have their citizenship revoked for life and not be allowed back in for any reason. I know it sounds harsh, but especially in an existential conflict like this one I think it is fitting. It is your choice to flee, but in doing so you should no longer get to identify with that country or nationality. It is an insult to all of those that stay and suffer, whether in the military or not, for that person to continue to have the rights of the others without shouldering the responsibility.
As the CPT said, there seems to be a disconnect between rights and responsibilities in a lot of nations nowadays. Freedom isn't free and those rights come with a price tag from time to time. 

I think service should be voluntary until that alone doesn't fill the need. When volunteers can't cover it, then the draft is perfectly fine. I agree that those that are pacifist or conscientious objectors should be allowed to fulfil non combat roles. I personally don't want to be in a foxhole next to someone who isn't there to fight, and believe that anyone else on the line would have the same opinion. With that being said, anyone who fails to answer the call and flees their country should have their citizenship revoked for life and not be allowed back in for any reason. I know it sounds harsh, but especially in an existential conflict like this one I think it is fitting. It is your choice to flee, but in doing so you should no longer get to identify with that country or nationality. It is an insult to all of those that stay and suffer, whether in the military or not, for that person to continue to have the rights of the others without shouldering the responsibility.
As the CPT said, there seems to be a disconnect between rights and responsibilities in a lot of nations nowadays. Freedom isn't free and those rights come with a price tag from time to time. 

The way I read the NATO stuff with Trump was that it was all about the money. That's how I read almost everything that he did and does. Now. I am not a fan. I know that many of you will be tempted to call me names or belittle me in some manner, but I'm going to make an observation anyway. There might be more availability of weapons and equipment under him, as he would likely see it as some sort of US MIC super Walmart. No doubt there will probably be an end to aid packages, but there is a good chance of actual investment into production and sales. As long as someone else was paying the tab, he could yell from the podium that he "fixed it" and that it was a "win" for his constituents, the tax payer, and the economy. It would certainly be a win for Ukraine if everything was for sale and it sure might be, as I believe he is very myopic when it comes to foreign policy and security.  

Ok, I don’t intend to get into or start an off topic political discussion, but I have to respond to this. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are living in a blatantly partisan political environment. The Democratic Party are just as partisan as the Republican Party, and will pull the same crap. They are mostly more concerned about getting a leg-up over, and embarrassing the other party than doing the “right thing” for the American people and its allies. The two extremes of the parties have driven out all of the “old moderates.” Yes, the Republicans have their MTGs, but the Democrats have their AOCs. Both are equally destructive to the process.
I keep hearing about how disruptive Republican Mitch McGovern was as the Senate Majority Leader, but everyone seems to forget about Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who refused to allow a single proposed bill that was proposed or passed by a Republican House, to go to the Senate floor for a vote.
I’m really sick and tired of the extremely partisan comments and camouflaged attacks that are constantly being posted by Liberals and Conservatives on this supposedly neutral Forum Thread. How about everyone who is doing it, stop and consider whether whether or not the Left and Right Wing garbage they are posting is appropriate to this thread.

I don't think so until counter drone is solved for. The defender would still be able to send their drones to bust up the offensive operations, ISR for arty, etc. Until one side can deny drones I don't think there will be much movement. 
 

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

I’d love to rag on Imperial Drone Laser Excelsior, but I feel like that’s just cruel and unusual.
So let’s talk about realistic, 6-36 month CUAS systems, specifically defense against Orlan-10 and the like, which I think is the number 1 ISR threat from the Russians. The numbers, as I understand them:
Unit cost of $50-150k. The solution needs to have a marginal cost of that or less for 99% hit probability. Even if you save targets worth a lot more, the proliferation of cheap drones means your solution needs to be as cheap. Service ceiling of 5km, but it sounds like they are often deployed around 1-2km. 150kmh top speed, sounds like cruise speed is 120kmph or so Size is about 2m x 2m. Control link is around 1GHz, not sure about video but I assume it’s 2+GHz (or maybe analog!?) My assumption is omnidirectional antennas from photos; I doubt Russia has the capability to produce cheap variable directionality (sp?) antennas. China probably though, but still not that cheap. Has a waypoint mode and active mode, presumably latter is used more. Can use another Orlan-10 as relay. As we discussed many pages ago, a little MOLLE mounted frequency detector is cool, but probably won’t detect one of these guys. I think what you need is either:
A decently sensitive antenna on the ground, briefcase sized maybe that can scan and detect ISR drones without need for an operator (other than having power). A fixed wing drone that silently listens for signals, kind of like a Rivet Joint, but not expensive. If you are flying at 2-3km, no reason you need that much in terms of big fancy antennas. A few SDRs is probably enough, especially if you are hunting a noisy relay. I think the second one is the better solution for ISR drones, as it could protect a larger area of front, especially if it’s static, and we aren’t talking about a big drone necessarily. It doesn’t need cameras, it doesn’t need a big fancy transmitter, just some SDRs and associated antennas for passive listening, and some loiter time. The second, probably the better long term solution as you deal with smaller, cheaper and more numerous drones (coexists with first though).
So what happens if you detect an Orlan-10 20-40km away? How do you shoot it down, cheaply. How do you ensure you have a weapon close enough to engage? Ideally, once you detect the damn thing you’d like to be able to shoot it down within 3-4 minutes.
One could build a lightweight missile that fits on the EW drone, but this imposes a constraint I think of max engagement range of 15km or so, because otherwise the munition will be too big. Max speed needs to be around 200kmh, or slower with some sort of sprint capability. I don’t think a big warhead is needed; just create a cloud of splinters. If the EW drone is cheap enough, maybe you pack them dense enough up high. Diamond Age it is. For example, if these things are re-useable and cheap (ie last 2-3 days for $50k cost), and you basically pack your 40km front with 10 of these in the air at once, you just don’t need as much range. Loitering munition that can take signals from EW drone, and “transform” into sprint mode by shedding wings and engaging a solid rocket motor. But you need more of these, and they need to be deployed somehow, and are likely disposable. Maybe you launch of package of ISR drones and interceptors off your Hilux in tubes, and they provide 2-4 hours of coverage with say 40km front with 3 minute interception time  covered with 1 EW drone and 6 interceptors. Go full Diamond Age, with EW drone and interceptor being one and the same, which might be cheaper, and just pack the front densely, denying ISR drones the chance to operate. This means re-useability and/or cheapness. It’s much hunch this is the best long term bet. Ground based launcher, which means it needs longer range, and you might need several of them. You aren’t as constrained in terms of weight, which means solid rocket boosters and thus high speed. A point defense solution seems like it’s gonna have to be developed, but I think it might be an evolutionary dead end compared to loitering interceptors. For terminal guidance, I think radar + SDR + optics are needed. I don’t think we can assume near future ISR drones will have much radar signature, if any. Maybe projecting a laser grid like Starstreak and correlating that with what the SDR and AWACS drone say? Or just SDR homing and camera???
EDIT: I say this with the perspective of what I think I, a software engineer specializing in distributed systems, but with some EE/embedded experience, and few friends with a good mix of EE and software could do in our garages, or at a cabin with 100 acres of flying range.
EDIT2: Could one use quadcopters within 2km range or less to intercept an Orlan-10 at 1km altitude 1km away? Some of those little racing/speed optimized drones can go quite a bit faster than 150kmh, so you stand a decent chance of intercept I guess. That seems like the absolute cheapest solution, though it provides the least coverage/range.

You are just a ray of sunshine today!!
In the meantime, Maginot Line fortifications might come back into season. How else do you defend a line other than covering it in several feet of reinforced concrete with screened apertures to keep the drones out?

So the way I think through this is that the country with the biggest drone budget wins. Whoever can field the most UAV and C-UAV will control the battlespace and everyone else is toast. Therefore if you aren't the largest economy in the world you need to figure something else out. So the natural response will be nuclear proliferation as that is the only trump card left in the deck at that point and if you don't have nukes you are defenseless. 
I guess this is a good thing for defense budgets as all other systems can be scrapped and most countries will only have to maintain a few ICBMs. I reckon we can all look forward to a unprecedented period of peace among mankind or nuclear annihilation. 

So the way I think through this is that the country with the biggest drone budget wins. Whoever can field the most UAV and C-UAV will control the battlespace and everyone else is toast. Therefore if you aren't the largest economy in the world you need to figure something else out. So the natural response will be nuclear proliferation as that is the only trump card left in the deck at that point and if you don't have nukes you are defenseless. 
I guess this is a good thing for defense budgets as all other systems can be scrapped and most countries will only have to maintain a few ICBMs. I reckon we can all look forward to a unprecedented period of peace among mankind or nuclear annihilation. 

So the way I think through this is that the country with the biggest drone budget wins. Whoever can field the most UAV and C-UAV will control the battlespace and everyone else is toast. Therefore if you aren't the largest economy in the world you need to figure something else out. So the natural response will be nuclear proliferation as that is the only trump card left in the deck at that point and if you don't have nukes you are defenseless. 
I guess this is a good thing for defense budgets as all other systems can be scrapped and most countries will only have to maintain a few ICBMs. I reckon we can all look forward to a unprecedented period of peace among mankind or nuclear annihilation. 

Next Russian attempt to enter to Chasiv Yar from Ivanivske. Column is destroyed. Video of 225th separate assault battalion
Su-25 over Chasiv Yar. Initially there was information this is Russian jets, but many told this is Ukrainian. Still unknown, so just "Su-25 over Chasiv Yar"
Rare episode of Ukrainian aviation uses gliding bombs. Russian position in Ivanivske got GBU-39
 

Elements of 59th mot.inf brigade,  109th and 111th TD brigades pushed Russians back from NW part of Pervomaiske village, taking back a school almost in the center of the village. Russian troops seized almost all it several days ago, advancing to Karlivla. This is southern flank of Avdiivka sector
  
 

In last days Russians activated on Staromayorske - Urozhaine section (Berdiansk directions). Mostly a war of small groups for forward positions. Here is Ukrianian troops of 58th mot.inf brigade turned back own previously lost position in 1 km south from Urozhaine
M113 approaches to threnches, shells it and land assault squad. Assaulters eleiminte Russians with grenades and HE charges, then ran back to M113, which already brought fresh group, which will hold position 
 

Isn't the number one thing that the UA troops were saying was the game changer for recent battles the glide bombing? 
This correlates to the drone discussion as that is what drones can't deliver yet: LARGE amounts of HE. They also can't support long range C4ISR like a HIMARS can. They don't have the kill radius that those tungsten balls do either. 
I'll give FPVs their due as they are the only indirect option that has proven effective on moving targets close to the front. That is where they are very useful is right on the front and close behind it. Anything deeper than that is a toss up. Look at the last airfield strike where quite a few long range UAV's went in. If you had a choice between that many UAV's or the same number of ATACMS, Tomahawks, or Storm Shadows which would you take? Which would give you the most damage and loss to the enemy?
Now that will lead into the what is available question, and that is where this war is a disconnect between the ground in Ukraine and if the US was prosecuting the same conflict: resources. The UA has had to develop the UAVs and FPVs in order to fill a gap that is not present for the US. A thousand pages ago a lot of us agreed that C4ISR and ammo to hit the targets equals success. The UA has been starving for ammo. If we really want to test the theory of where these weapon systems fit into the future, give the UA the platforms and the ammo and see where the drones get meshed in. My bet is company level and below integral fire support and recon. 
For those reasons I don't believe that the UAV's will usurp the other systems, but they will become complementary. I do believe they will be very significantly expanded and should be prolific on the fire team to company level, but I don't see how in their current form they can replace 50lbs of explosive and fragmentation 50 or more kms away in a matter of minutes. 
The defensive primacy will only last until there are effective drone countermeasures, whatever they may be. Once that is done, those layered indirect fire platforms and the other members of the traditional combined arms will be back on deck to make things happen. 

Isn't the number one thing that the UA troops were saying was the game changer for recent battles the glide bombing? 
This correlates to the drone discussion as that is what drones can't deliver yet: LARGE amounts of HE. They also can't support long range C4ISR like a HIMARS can. They don't have the kill radius that those tungsten balls do either. 
I'll give FPVs their due as they are the only indirect option that has proven effective on moving targets close to the front. That is where they are very useful is right on the front and close behind it. Anything deeper than that is a toss up. Look at the last airfield strike where quite a few long range UAV's went in. If you had a choice between that many UAV's or the same number of ATACMS, Tomahawks, or Storm Shadows which would you take? Which would give you the most damage and loss to the enemy?
Now that will lead into the what is available question, and that is where this war is a disconnect between the ground in Ukraine and if the US was prosecuting the same conflict: resources. The UA has had to develop the UAVs and FPVs in order to fill a gap that is not present for the US. A thousand pages ago a lot of us agreed that C4ISR and ammo to hit the targets equals success. The UA has been starving for ammo. If we really want to test the theory of where these weapon systems fit into the future, give the UA the platforms and the ammo and see where the drones get meshed in. My bet is company level and below integral fire support and recon. 
For those reasons I don't believe that the UAV's will usurp the other systems, but they will become complementary. I do believe they will be very significantly expanded and should be prolific on the fire team to company level, but I don't see how in their current form they can replace 50lbs of explosive and fragmentation 50 or more kms away in a matter of minutes. 
The defensive primacy will only last until there are effective drone countermeasures, whatever they may be. Once that is done, those layered indirect fire platforms and the other members of the traditional combined arms will be back on deck to make things happen. 

Next Russian assault group was delivered to Berdychi on BMP-1M... and all they remained there
 

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 
The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 
In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.
edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf