FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 3 minutes ago, hcrof said: You make it sound like the border is a binary issue, which just plays into extremist talking points: "Biden wants millions of brown trans rapists to cross the border because he is an evil person who hates white America - trump would shut it all down" Vs "The fashists want to shoot Mexicans on sight so the solution is to not come up with any solution to the border because if bad people want something we should do the opposite " Not helpful. ??? What. I just said they want labor. That's it. All other complications are, typically, theater. Like this post, for example, which approaches the issue as if it's a matter of politicking and not a matter of certain power levers in the economy wheeling and dealing: Just now, Twisk said: This really doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you look at what the Biden admin and the Senate have tried repeatedly to pass. The hold up is solely the Speaker of the House who is, for all intents and purposes, in Trump's pocket. The bills aren't being brought to the floor for a vote and if it were truly a "Democratic project" to fail then the House would be voting and voting along party lines. The fact that the House isn't voting means that enough Republican members agree with the bill that it has be protected by the Speaker. Mike Johnson has Ukrainian blood on his hands. There really isn't any other way to put it. Not only that but as an American he is single handedly responsible for the feckless Federal response to the border. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Guys, you're going way off topic. Please stop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 9 hours ago, cesmonkey said: https://t.me/censor_net/45708 I just wanted to point out how much ISR value these drones give by not being autonomous. As long as you can send a video back you want to do that. Adding to the discussion about the speed of those drones. Imagine if the drone goes with 80km/h and the vehicle at 40km/h. If the vehicle is 5km away from the drone and both start moving at the same time the drone catches up to the vehicle at the 10km mark from starting point of the drone. If however the vehicle is going 60 km/h the drone would catch up only at the 20km mark. In this example a 50% speed increase is a 100% increase of distance to catch up. So going faster absolutely makes sense as a defense against drones. It also decreases the time you can get detected. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 29 minutes ago, hcrof said: You make it sound like the border is a binary issue, which just plays into extremist talking points: "Biden wants millions of brown trans rapists to cross the border because he is an evil person who hates white America - trump would shut it all down" Vs "The fashists want to shoot Mexicans on sight so the solution is to not come up with any solution to the border because if bad people want something we should do the opposite " Not helpful. Oh good this guy came back. It was getting slow in here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States Just going to leave this one here because it is a slow Tues. Anyone who wants to go on a learning journey can start there. If only things could get back to the way they were: Oh wait…they are. [Sorry couldn’t resist.] Edited February 20 by The_Capt 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 7 minutes ago, zinz said: I just wanted to point out how much ISR value these drones give by not being autonomous. As long as you can send a video back you want to do that. Adding to the discussion about the speed of those drones. Imagine if the drone goes with 80km/h and the vehicle at 40km/h. If the vehicle is 5km away from the drone and both start moving at the same time the drone catches up to the vehicle at the 10km mark from starting point of the drone. If however the vehicle is going 60 km/h the drone would catch up only at the 20km mark. In this example a 50% speed increase is a 100% increase of distance to catch up. So going faster absolutely makes sense as a defense against drones. It also decreases the time you can get detected. I have to agree. There is serious advantage to putting a human brain this far forward. I am convinced in the future we will see hybrid systems of human crewed teamed up with fully autonomous systems. One can’t beat humans for context and problem solving forward. But one has to be able to still project fires in a heavily denied EW environment, so combine the little beasts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 4 minutes ago, The_Capt said: Oh good this guy came back. It was getting slow in here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States Just going to leave this one here because it is a slow Tues. Anyone who wants to go on a learning journey can start there. If only things could get back to the way they were: Oh wait…they are. [Sorry couldn’t resist.] I can provide you many quotes, essays, papers, pamphlets, government researches from or adjacent to socialists and unionists in that 1900-1940 timeline talking about immigration if you would like. If it helps your dog whistles, they weren't talking about 'Hispanics' back then, but Slavs, Greeks, Irish, Italians, and others. Then again, slyly implying this is a racial issue is the trick deployed by the industrialists to get the pro-union left onboard with their own destruction. I would expect a man with your surface level approach to warfare to be of a similar mind when it came to economic issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 22 minutes ago, The_Capt said: Oh good this guy came back. It was getting slow in here. 13 minutes ago, FlemFire said: I can provide you many quotes, essays, papers, pamphlets, government researches from or adjacent to socialists and unionists in that 1900-1940 timeline talking about immigration if you would like. If it helps your dog whistles, they weren't talking about 'Hispanics' back then, but Slavs, Greeks, Irish, Italians, and others. Then again, slyly implying this is a racial issue is the trick deployed by the industrialists to get the pro-union left onboard with their own destruction. I would expect a man with your surface level approach to warfare to be of a similar mind when it came to economic issues. No, not good Capt. I asked nicely to cut it out. This is the 2nd time I'm asking nicely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Just now, BFCElvis said: No, not good Capt. I asked nicely to cut it out. This is the 2nd time I'm asking nicely. In my defence, I didn’t see the first warning shot until after I posted my troll bait. However, now that you are pulling my license and registration I think I will get off at the next ramp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grigb Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Interesting, it appears that the RU Nats (not Army) are coming to the conclusion that using flak suits with partial protection in addition to regular armor is currently optimal method to reduce assault infantry casualties caused by drone attacks. The suite consists of Kevlar sections that cover a large part of the body's non armor protected surface. They tried flak blankets (ineffective), flak shields (too cumbersome for assault troops), and flak suits with complete body protection (too heavy and uncomfortable). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, Grigb said: Interesting, it appears that the RU Nats (not Army) are coming to the conclusion that using flak suits with partial protection in addition to regular armor is currently optimal method to reduce assault infantry casualties caused by drone attacks. The suite consists of Kevlar sections that cover a large part of the body's non armor protected surface. They tried flak blankets (ineffective), flak shields (too cumbersome for assault troops), and flak suits with complete body protection (too heavy and uncomfortable). Best counter to a drone is to shoot it down. We're currently at a stage that, at least I believe anyway, we'll look back on as people do to 1914-1915 where new technology landed faster than humanity's ability to match it with changes in military doctrine. Right now there's EW going on from both sides that tilts back and forth in its ability to intercept (electronically) these drones, but when I believe we'll see the development of new point defenses specifically directed at shooting drones right out of the sky. There's no way, for example, that the U.S. would allow compilation vids of its soldiers getting grenaded repeatedly by drones. IEDs and dummy traps are one thing, GoPros of dismemberment and death is another. It also would not surprise me if we're only in a small moment where drones offer a sense of parity between otherwise disparate sides, but over time only one of these sides ("first world") will have the means to develop anti-drone gear, and then it'll go right back to an apocalyptic hellscape for those who do not have those means. Imagine a future for Middle-Eastern factions, for example, who have to deal with a drone swarm with a multi-year lead on what's already available. The gulf in firepower will only grow wider and wider. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desertor Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 On 2/19/2024 at 8:31 PM, Aragorn2002 said: No doubt about that. Why they didn't protect the pilot better is a mystery to me. Well, considering that the pilot was killed in a parking situated in a tourist resort in Spain I would think somebody recognised him and passed the word, then a extrajudicial death sentence was pronounced and a killer filled the contract… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, zinz said: I just wanted to point out how much ISR value these drones give by not being autonomous. As long as you can send a video back you want to do that. Adding to the discussion about the speed of those drones. Imagine if the drone goes with 80km/h and the vehicle at 40km/h. If the vehicle is 5km away from the drone and both start moving at the same time the drone catches up to the vehicle at the 10km mark from starting point of the drone. If however the vehicle is going 60 km/h the drone would catch up only at the 20km mark. In this example a 50% speed increase is a 100% increase of distance to catch up. So going faster absolutely makes sense as a defense against drones. It also decreases the time you can get detected. You can be autonomous and send video back. It's a useful mode to have if you're concerned about someone using the radio signal from your controller as a target - it can just act as a passive listener. Speed helps in outrunning one drone, but you can't outrun motorola. If you're made by one drone that can't catch up, another drone may already be positioned along your path to intercept unless you're running directly away from the lines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 If we're doing SAT math problems, might want to factor in that drones also have an angle of attack seeing as how they're flying in from the air, meaning you actually have to go much faster than them. Having seen one of these things catch up to and promptly explode a guy flying down the road on an ATV, I don't think you're outrunning the speedier drones anytime soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 6 hours ago, billbindc said: A notable detail in this video that’s gone viral this morning is that every single drone feed shows that each on is down to about 3% of power. It’s a fair guess that the Russians imagined this warehouse to be beyond the range of FPV: I don't spend time with drones, but I do spend time using the "wrong" type of batteries in things. It's possible that the drones are all on low battery, or it could be that they're using batteries that run at a little lower voltage than whatever the drone was designed for. There are lots of batteries that are "direct substitutes" with slightly different chemistries that run at lower cell voltages. Some devices care a lot and won't work, while other devices just say "low battery" from the time you put it in to the time it runs out. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 49 minutes ago, FlemFire said: Best counter to a drone is to shoot it down. We're currently at a stage that, at least I believe anyway, we'll look back on as people do to 1914-1915 where new technology landed faster than humanity's ability to match it with changes in military doctrine. Right now there's EW going on from both sides that tilts back and forth in its ability to intercept (electronically) these drones, but when I believe we'll see the development of new point defenses specifically directed at shooting drones right out of the sky. There's no way, for example, that the U.S. would allow compilation vids of its soldiers getting grenaded repeatedly by drones. IEDs and dummy traps are one thing, GoPros of dismemberment and death is another. It also would not surprise me if we're only in a small moment where drones offer a sense of parity between otherwise disparate sides, but over time only one of these sides ("first world") will have the means to develop anti-drone gear, and then it'll go right back to an apocalyptic hellscape for those who do not have those means. Imagine a future for Middle-Eastern factions, for example, who have to deal with a drone swarm with a multi-year lead on what's already available. The gulf in firepower will only grow wider and wider. The depth and breadth of what you have zero idea upon but insist on running commentary is quite astonishing. This little “blip” just allowed a small nation to stop the second largest military (now third) on the planet cold. This little “blip” is much more than “drones” in need of “anti-drone gear” it is a level of artificial processing power that is 1) illuminating the battle space, 2) connecting X’s to shooters faster than we can really keep up with, 2) creating precision effects so inexpensively that denial is dominating. But that, you reduce down to “well just wait until we get more ‘anti-drone’ gear to shoot all them thar annoying toys down” and “then we will have all the drones and them none”? Ignoring the fact that drone costs are likely to plummet as everyone start making more and more of them. “Shooting them down”, gee now why didn’t we think of that? After two years of warfare in Ukraine neither side - with access to the entire Western sphere of technology and equipment on one, and Chinese technology on the other - has been able to solve for hundreds of bird sized UAS able to spot kms out. As these systems become more autonomous EW won’t work. Lasers will not work beyond static installations and maybe ships (but they have a whole other problem). And the big one - we can’t be invisible, the ISR value of these systems alone is warfare breaking. Why am I not surprised that one of your openly declared ilk would find a driving shift in warfare the likes we have not seen since the invention of the machine gun as “an easy fix, but we will be just fine because…’first world’? But in your expert opinion “we will show them Middle Easters a thing or two once we get all them drones”. Missing the point that other opposing powers are in fact leading on a lot of this technology, not us, and are more than willing to arm asymmetric opponents (see: Houthis). The gulf in effective firepower has shrunk dramatically. And it has done so by denial. Because our opponents are not stupid or lazy and spent 30 years developing counters to our military power. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, The_Capt said: artificial processing power that is 1) illuminating the battle space, 2) connecting X’s to shooters faster than we can really keep up with, 2) creating precision effects so inexpensively that denial is dominating. It's miniaturized sensors and higher energy density materials. Any time we get a discontinuous progression in either, military things get weird. And usually weird in the "scary and more lethal" sense of weird. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: I have to agree. There is serious advantage to putting a human brain this far forward. I am convinced in the future we will see hybrid systems of human crewed teamed up with fully autonomous systems. One can’t beat humans for context and problem solving forward. But one has to be able to still project fires in a heavily denied EW environment, so combine the little beasts. ahh but not quite there. Behold Capt while I propose a truly revolutionary development. We have so many many people who clearly aren't using their brains and so... we take ze brains of zee people not needing them and put them into zee drones! We have literally tens of millions and zooo much better if ze brain is right zere in zee drones, no? Edited February 20 by sburke 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, The_Capt said: The depth and breadth of what you have zero idea upon but insist on running commentary is quite astonishing. This little “blip” just allowed a small nation to stop the second largest military (now third) on the planet cold. This little “blip” is much more than “drones” in need of “anti-drone gear” it is a level of artificial processing power that is 1) illuminating the battle space, 2) connecting X’s to shooters faster than we can really keep up with, 2) creating precision effects so inexpensively that denial is dominating. But that, you reduce down to “well just wait until we get more ‘anti-drone’ gear to shoot all them thar annoying toys down” and “then we will have all the drones and them none”? Ignoring the fact that drone costs are likely to plummet as everyone start making more and more of them. “Shooting them down”, gee now why didn’t we think of that? After two years of warfare in Ukraine neither side - with access to the entire Western sphere of technology and equipment on one, and Chinese technology on the other - has been able to solve for hundreds of bird sized UAS able to spot kms out. As these systems become more autonomous EW won’t work. Lasers will not work beyond static installations and maybe ships (but they have a whole other problem). And the big one - we can’t be invisible, the ISR value of these systems alone is warfare breaking. Why am I not surprised that one of your openly declared ilk would find a driving shift in warfare the likes we have not seen since the invention of the machine gun as “an easy fix, but we will be just fine because…’first world’? But in your expert opinion “we will show them Middle Easters a thing or two once we get all them drones”. Missing the point that other opposing powers are in fact leading on a lot of this technology, not us, and are more than willing to arm asymmetric opponents (see: Houthis). The gulf in effective firepower has shrunk dramatically. And it has done so by denial. Because our opponents are not stupid or lazy and spent 30 years developing counters to our military power. Despite your tangent here, I don't know what you're disagreeing about. Yes, it's a technical marvel. Yes, technical marvels tend to invite military investment and with that comes counter-measures. We're currently in the midst of it, so like you said the gulf of firepower has shrunken. In my expert opinion smaller nations or sub-factions (like Middle-Eastern terrorists or clans), do not have the firepower to match modern weaponry. They must devise themselves advantages. With drones, as it currently stands, there is parity, because everyone is on the same level. When the advanced militaries figure out how to counter drones, then these same non-advanced fighters will find themselves further behind the 8-ball than they ever were before. I pointed out the machine-gun because, for a spell, they also briefly put rebels and standing armies at positions of parity -- until the latter got access to tanks and airplanes. Something is always coming down the pipe. How this is controversial to you is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, FlemFire said: Despite your tangent here, I don't know what you're disagreeing about. Yes, it's a technical marvel. Yes, technical marvels tend to invite military investment and with that comes counter-measures. We're currently in the midst of it, so like you said the gulf of firepower has shrunken. In my expert opinion smaller nations or sub-factions (like Middle-Eastern terrorists or clans), do not have the firepower to match modern weaponry. They must devise themselves advantages. With drones, as it currently stands, there is parity, because everyone is on the same level. When the advanced militaries figure out how to counter drones, then these same non-advanced fighters will find themselves further behind the 8-ball than they ever were before. I pointed out the machine-gun because, for a spell, they also briefly put rebels and standing armies at positions of parity -- until the latter got access to tanks and airplanes. Something is always coming down the pipe. How this is controversial to you is beyond me. The two most technologically advanced MICs on the planet have been watching this go on for two years now and would no doubt love to use Ukraine as a test environment. In that time, the drone problem has only gotten worse, with no real sign of effective anti-drone capability at the tactical level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Just now, chrisl said: The two most technologically advanced MICs on the planet have been watching this go on for two years now and would no doubt love to use Ukraine as a test environment. In that time, the drone problem has only gotten worse, with no real sign of effective anti-drone capability at the tactical level. You're right. Military solutions usually surface instantaneously, especially when it concerns newfound technology. That it hasn't happened yet proves that it never will. These tautologies make perfect sense, as they tend to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Just now, FlemFire said: You're right. Military solutions usually surface instantaneously, especially when it concerns newfound technology. That it hasn't happened yet proves that it never will. These tautologies make perfect sense, as they tend to do. Tactical drones have gone through a few generations of development in those two years and we're still seeing nothing to counter them. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's not an easy problem and it has to be cheaper and more plentiful than drones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFire Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Just now, chrisl said: Tactical drones have gone through a few generations of development in those two years and we're still seeing nothing to counter them. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's not an easy problem and it has to be cheaper and more plentiful than drones. You're not seeing anything because currently it's almost entirely based in EW, which your two eyeballs will never see. When the EW matches up with the physical, those drones will lose effectiveness quite quickly. How and when that happens is another matter. Countries like the U.S. and China have billions of dollars of budget and the brightest minds watching this conflict like a hawk. Of course they're brewing up counter-measures. How long does it take to research, test, manufacture, and deliver something to a battlefield? Drones could be a nuisance for years to come, or they could get swatted down pretty easily, or go back and forth on that front much like tanks and anti-tank weapons. Note, I was a huge proponent of drone warfare and said very early on in this conflict that drone swarms would likely make tanks outmoded. I am very aware of their capabilities and I think their effectiveness hasn't even capped out yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 16 minutes ago, FlemFire said: You're not seeing anything because currently it's almost entirely based in EW, which your two eyeballs will never see. When the EW matches up with the physical, those drones will lose effectiveness quite quickly. How and when that happens is another matter. Countries like the U.S. and China have billions of dollars of budget and the brightest minds watching this conflict like a hawk. Of course they're brewing up counter-measures. How long does it take to research, test, manufacture, and deliver something to a battlefield? Drones could be a nuisance for years to come, or they could get swatted down pretty easily, or go back and forth on that front much like tanks and anti-tank weapons. Note, I was a huge proponent of drone warfare and said very early on in this conflict that drone swarms would likely make tanks outmoded. I am very aware of their capabilities and I think their effectiveness hasn't even capped out yet. You need to read further back in the thread. EW is at best a stopgap against drones, because autonomy is also advancing rapidly, and if they don't need a two way comm link, EW does nothing for defending against them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 45 minutes ago, chrisl said: You can be autonomous and send video back. It's a useful mode to have if you're concerned about someone using the radio signal from your controller as a target - it can just act as a passive listener. Speed helps in outrunning one drone, but you can't outrun motorola. If you're made by one drone that can't catch up, another drone may already be positioned along your path to intercept unless you're running directly away from the lines. 41 minutes ago, FlemFire said: If we're doing SAT math problems, might want to factor in that drones also have an angle of attack seeing as how they're flying in from the air, meaning you actually have to go much faster than them. Having seen one of these things catch up to and promptly explode a guy flying down the road on an ATV, I don't think you're outrunning the speedier drones anytime soon. Sure driving faster is not keeping you completely safe. But that was not my point. The counter measures you suggested certainly work but are making the whole targeting process a lot more complicated. The relative speeds and distances mean that being able to go faster on the road does matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: Since we've gone a few days without bashing Carlson, here's something totally inline with our discussions here... but funnier: Steve Damn you Jon Stewart! It will be years before I'll be able to eat a bagel again! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.