US fired over 600 missile interceptors defending Israel in three years
stephensemler.com
stephensemler.com
We are seeing the Drone reset today.
Ukraine has become very effective at countering the prop based drones, including shahed. The Russian adaption has been to jet powered shaheds and cheap cruise missiles (the familiar form factor) and the interception rate has gone down significantly and requires unsustainable countermeasures. These jet powered shaheds are being referred to as pseudo-cruise missiles by the people who study these things.
It's likely to be the hardest winter yet for Ukrainians based on the current dynamics.
War is chaos at times, life is complicated, its not always black or white. You are too focused on labels instead of understanding the change. The change is everythign, cost, advantages, in effective of current technologies due to supply and more.
The way to think about this is that it is helpful to have more nuanced definitions for the variety of munitions. They have different characteristics and requirements for countering.
When does a drone become a missile? It changes as the technology of war changes and the two sides adapt. Jet powered Gerans act a lot more like a cruise missile.
Similarly, we classify quad rotor drones with artillery shells in the drone category, used for the same effect, rather than calling them long-range fire (artillery), because they are dynamically navigable (even though some artillery shells have course correcting gps features).
"drones" are easier to counter then "missiles" - an important point of distinction - and Russia/Ukraine are both building super cheap missiles, for the roles long-range, one-way drones used to fill, because the drone versions are rapidly losing effectiveness. Jet powered gerans now make up more than half of barrages by Russia.
My point in this thread is that the intercepters we burned through are important, because adversaries are now moving from the types of munitions we have called drones for the last 4 years, to munitions that look and behave a lot more like missiles. They need more expensive countermeasures than 50 cal and other cheap drones. This is important to realize when investing in defensive measures.
Drones are still a significant change to land war, but are less important in the US-Iran war or a potential conflict in the pacific. Decoys and concrete are something few talk about.
Perun's last two episodes were with Mike Koffman and on these evolving topics
Gotcha so you say you know more because you say your the expert.
> I'm only relaying their expertise and insights, professionals who study and advise actual militaries, who have been to Ukraine,
Are these the same experts who failed the US military ?
- Where are the backup auxilary fleet to supply the US navy at long range ? The USN is very much short here thats why they have had food and other supply problems to the carrier fleet.
- These same experts failed to prepare against the Iran missiles, thats why every US base around the gulf is effectively destroyed.
> but also understand the big picture not interested in answering your uninformed questions since you seem intent on looking like you know so much about this
I have shared FACTS that the US failed to prepare for drones and missiles from Iran.
Dont call me names, show me examples where my observations are incorrect.
Show me the prestine 5th Fleet HQ.
> My point in this thread is that the intercepters we burned through are important, because adversaries are now moving from the types of munitions we have called drones for the last 4 years, to munitions that look and behave a lot more like missiles. They need more expensive countermeasures than 50 cal and other cheap drones. This is important to realize when investing in defensive measures.
EXACTLY. Your experts failed here to prepare and you tell me that my observation is wrong because the game changed ?
In pacific war, the US will most definitely run from K, JP and TW, just like they did in the gulf. Why would any ally especially in the gulf ever invite them back - simple answer is they wont.
most aircraft losses in war games are on the ground, in the first days of a high intensity first month until both sides burn through stocks
(again, I'm only relaying what I have heard multiple experts say)
Where exactly did i say the US was based out of TW ?
Please provide my quotes that support your response.
All i said is that the above countries are allies and they would be abandoned if that theatre warmed up. I never said or used the word BASE or anything similar.
I was clearly referring to allies.
> Guam is a better answer, but will likely be unusable after a few days most aircraft losses in war games are on the ground, in the first days of a high intensity first month until both sides burn through stocks
How exactly does this contradict my observation ?
Why are you so fixed on the label drone ?
I would include SS in the new weapons, sure drone is a perfect term, never claimed it was. I just used it because it matched enough of the new tech that we are seeing. You can make up a new term if you want - it doesnt matter.
I can call it "new tech" if you want.
> "drones" are easier to counter then "missiles" - an important point of distinction - and Russia/Ukraine are both building super cheap missiles, for the roles long-range, one-way drones used to fill, because the drone versions are rapidly losing effectiveness. Jet powered gerans now make up more than half of barrages by Russia.
One drone might be easy to down comapred to ONE missile, but many are not.
You are completely missing the point that many will always get through and thats the advantage they give. One needs to look at the big picture. One side could buy a ONE missile and the other could buy 100s of cheapo drones. WHich will do more damage or a bigger win. I think the answer is obvious, one building destroyed is a win, but a swarm of drones will do more damage - just ask the Russias.
You are oversimplified and not looking at the big picture.
> My point in this thread is that the intercepters we burned through are important, because adversaries are now moving from the types of munitions we have called drones for the last 4 years, to munitions that look and behave a lot more like missiles. They need more expensive countermeasures than 50 cal and other cheap drones. This is important to realize when investing in defensive measures.
Why so many word games ? Call them whatever you like it doesnt matter.
BTW: not sure why you saw "we burned", its not your military - they didnt ask you if you sanctioned the idea. Its NOT yours.
> Drones are still a significant change to land war, but are less important in the US-Iran war or a potential conflict in the pacific. Decoys and concrete are something few talk about.
The US navy clearly disagrees with you.
Its pretty obvious they dont believe they can land an invasion force or move closer to the gulf.
The US cannot afford this waiting game, the US economy is clearly suffering from the consequences of their inability to win.
> Decoys and concrete are something few talk about.
Concrete what ?
not interested in answering your uninformed questions since you seem intent on looking like you know so much about this
the channel I linked you to, especially the two most recent videos, is a good starting place
Of course none of the other armies are adapting to this (you know, first step, imho, would be to prove you can do this yourself. Even if you do it with esp32 that would still be valuable experience)
That's where "AI" comes in, making this available to the average troglodyte with an outside funding source.
Is it suggestions from YT like running videos in languages i dont speak or is it running the SAME ad for months ?
AI is a universal function approximator.
And intelligence is a function (because everything is).
So it follows that AI is intelligence, just like a fly or even individual bacteria are intelligent. It's just a matter of the level.
What made you overlook the quotes around "AI"?
Having said this it would certainly be possible to use a model to plan a mobile mesh network.