Screenshot
Link to article here.
If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.
different clue
Ooo! Ooo! I know. The phrase ” the most advanced military in the world” has been rendered O B E ( Overtaken By Events ). Those militaries which are good or best with drones are becoming the collection of Most Advanced Militaries in the New Battlefield World which is emerging.
One could say the same about militaries with Hypersonic Missiles and some other neat new stuff which we don’t have.
Sean Paul Kelley
And our winner is Different Clue!
different clue
This reminds me of a sad and rueful memory from the early 1980’s. I was watching a late night show called Into The Night which was never very heavily watched. And I remember the host describing the periodically-staged ” Name That Tune” contest. First person to call in with the correct answer won $10,000. I was a $3,000-a-year Security Guard at the time.
So he played the first four notes. Immediately my brain played the rest of the tune for me. But I could not remember the name. So I sat there grinding my teeth through the show while he played more and more and more of that tune. Finally, after playing many many bars of it, someone called in with In The Mood, by Benny Goodman. ” And we have a winner!”
Huntly
Replace advanced with expensive!
Sean Paul Kelley
@Huntly: we have winner #2!
shagggz
“Most advanced” cannot be “playing catchup.”
Did I win?
Sean Paul Kelley
@Shagggz: we have our third winner!
Carborundum
Drones are very useful, but they aren’t the be all and end all. They’ve been abundantly demonstrated to be useful in economy of force operations when maneuver is low. Put them in a situation where it’s a balls to the wall armoured advance and things will be a lot different.
This is why major powers are looking to generate much more advanced capabilities – they’ll still rely on vehicles that people will look at and call drones but really what they will be are loitering munitions dispensed from a carrier and using AI scene characterization to autonomously seek targets. To my mind, that’s more different from current drones than it is similar.
More abstractly, off the top of my head, I would evaluate three things when thinking about how “advanced” a military is.
In the context of their required mode of war and campaign plan:
1) how experienced the people involved are in the mode of warfare and, particularly, how quickly they learn and how quickly does the institution capitalize on this learning,
2) how effectively they can generate the volume of information they need and get it to the right place at the right time to feed the decision-making required of the mode of warfare (and make those decisions, obvs), and
3) to what extent can they maneuver effectively and bring fires with the precision and weight necessary to achieve useful things.
Notably, that does not necessarily mean that the military with the zoomiest transpo and the hugest, most boomiest weapons systems is always going to be the most “advanced”. A bunch of guys with rusty G3s and ICOMs can be surprisingly advanced for their circumstances – like standing there watching the flies crawl on your eyeballs advanced.
JR
A question is ; Do the authors of said article believe what they wrote or is it another in a long list of psyops?
Eric Anderson
Carbo:
My Dad (two silver star retired army airborne Col.) would always say war is easy.
You just have to the firstest with the mostest.
I’d say by that definition we’re behindest by a lotest.
Chipper
The problem with the headline is that it’s CNN and not The Onion.
Feral Finster
TL:DR: “Need Money Send ASAP!”
Purple Library Guy
@Carborundum
On the “armoured advance” . . . not so much. In the Russia/Ukraine war, the Russians have plenty of tanks and armoured vehicles. The main reason they’re not doing any “balls to the wall armoured advances” is precisely drones. Send in a bunch of armoured vehicles, drones kill them. And the thing is, it’s hard to gather a lot of armoured vehicles in one place for an attack without the enemy realizing it (because of their surveillance drones) and making sure they have plenty of drones ready for the party.
For that matter, back a couple years when the Ukrainians did their big counteroffensive that died . . . yeah. They did “balls to the wall armoured advances”. The Russians had an elaborate multi-layered defense in depth with lots of fortifications waiting for them. They mostly didn’t even reach the first layer, because the Russians killed the armour with drones. More recently, electronic warfare briefly started to gain effectiveness vs drones, but then the Russians at least deployed a ton of drones that trailed kilometres of fibre optic string, that ignore EW. That kind of armoured advance is not currently viable.
There are certain exceptions. There seem to have increasingly been cases where the Russians cut off some area’s logistics, probe for a while to use up enemy ammunition including drones, blow up any drone wrangling squads they can find, and then send in the armour when they’re pretty sure the Ukrainians have nothing left. But that’s about it.
Forests seem to be largely drone-free areas, but you can’t really use armour there.
Nat Wilson Turner
@Carborundum I’ll assume by “balls to the wall armored advance” you are trying to imply that because the Ukrainian advances in 2023 didn’t include adequate air or artillery support and the Russian air force is not the equal of the USAF that we have yet to see a “balls to the wall armored advance” in the Ukraine war.
You are right about the first instance but not the 2nd.
I dread the day Americans learn the hard way we no longer have anything resembling military primacy. That’s the day the Interregnum of Unreality comes crashing down
Hiero
Carb isn’t wrong. I read a very reasonable analysis on how “drones” aren’t the OP meta some are making them out to be – I wish I could remember where. But at the same time, yes, “most advanced” is incongruent with “playing catch-up”, especially when considering all the shiny things that are in “catch-up” mode besides drones.
Feral Finster
“Offensives are too costly because drones! Drones, I tell you!” is just more cope.
Try and move a drone any considerable distance in its own. You can’t. It has to be transported, whether by rail, truck, etc..
That there is a single bridge (or anything else) left standing in Ukraine is a testament to Russian dithering and indecision.
different clue
Since drones have come up as a sub-subject in this post-and-thread combo, I thought this video I just saw could be relevant here, specifically a particular time-bounded section of it. The rest of it is not relevant to this discussion, as the title will make clear:
” Melania ABANDONS Trump As LEAKED Report Reveals IT’S OVER! ” That’s a soap opera title and some of the content will be soap opera.
But there is a particular time-bounded chunk of audiovisual footage discussing Trump corruption as it will affect Federal DOD aquisition of military drones. It starts at slider-bar timepoint 0:57 and stops at slider-bar timepoint 2:45. I don’t yet know what the rest of the whole video will be, but this little timechunk is relevant. If this little timechunk is correct, DOD-watchers will soon or soonish be hearing about a tiny drone company in Florida called Unusual Machines. https://www.unusualmachines.com/
Anyway, the link to this video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHV68wVLp4A
Carborundum
I find the recent western experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq [among many other locales] difficult to reconcile with the notion that warfare is *purely* about absolute speed and weight of fires (i.e., firstest with the mostest). Definitely key, but what one does once one is “there” is determinative.
Although we see lots of footage of drone strikes, we shouldn’t infer that they are the primary driver. Drones have cameras; field fortifications and artillery shells [mostly] do not.
Ian Welsh
I’ve seen it claimed, and I think it’s a good argument, that as the Ukrainians are degraded enough and the Russians are past the major fortifications, that the Russians could do some big arrow movement if they choose, but they prefer attrition warfare for the time being. (Drain the manpower reserve completely.)
And I don’t think drones, at the numbers and local concentrations the Ukrainians have could stop a big armored push, especially given Russia has air and artillery superiority.
Feral Finster
“I’ve seen it claimed, and I think it’s a good argument, that as the Ukrainians are degraded enough and the Russians are past the major fortifications, that the Russians could do some big arrow movement if they choose, but they prefer attrition warfare for the time being.”
Probably wishful thinking. We’ve been hearing these confident proclamations that Ukraine is drained of manpower for over three years now but it never seems to happen, much as I may like things to be otherwise.
Anyway, NATO will intervene, as a result of Russian dithering and indecision.
Bill Metzler
@different clue
“In the Mood” was Glenn Miller.
different clue
@ Bill Metzler,
Thanks. Well, at least I recognized the sound of the music itself . . . as I grinded my teeth not knowing the name.