102
Luckily, wars are not won by supply lines but by funneling infinite cash into R&D for Lockheed wunderwaffen.
Amateurs talk about logistics, professionals talk about how badass a high-tech wunderwaffe is and it's all you need to win a war
Nice infantry you fuckin nerd, but do you have a trillion dollar plane that requires the cost of supplying your entire front for a month every time it goes 5 feet off the ground?
You have no chance kid
:very-smart:
It's Anduril now and Kratos Defense
Andruil is more of a means to counter the current issues as opposed to perpetuate them. They operate on a sales based model (i.e. 1 missile is always 250k and that's the only transaction the gov makes) as opposed to a contact-based model that the legacy contractors use. This means that there's less classic contract grift and less profit per item. It is, of course, significantly less efficient than a traditional state-owned defense industry where no money is lost to profit, but the Pentagon knows they're going to be in hot water soon and are trying to make things a bit more efficient.
as Inside China Business put it, "beecause the western military industry is there to make profits, not weaponry"
Oh yeah? Well we make planes that can fly 80% of the time
80 percent of the time, they work every time
Russia was at war in 24, so that isn’t too surprising. With that said, when you start looking at the scale of production of the US and Russia “military” complexes it is incredible.
Russian production was four times that of all of NATO, not just America. The financialized Western economies are incapable of matching Russian production.
It's almost like when everyone shaves off a chunk of the money through every avenue, those investments don't amount to anything.
Same goes for Iran. Their military budget is comparable to the NYPD's, but they have way more firepower than amerikkka would ever have with that budget
Tangential question: I saw a pre-fiber-optic-drones figure of 75% of casualties were cause by drones, and another a bit later by theweek.com saying 80%. Can anyone point me toward recent figures?
I'm highly skeptical of these figures to be honest. People like Mearsheimer long pointed out that vast majority of casualties come from artillery, and this makes sense given that artillery is used in far greater volume than drones. The rate of fire is between 5-10k shells a day, there aren't nearly as many drones flying around.
Yeah on one hand, it's plausible that one drone is much more likely to hit a target than one artillery shell.
On the other hand, it's indisputable that a drone attack is extremely more visible than artillery shelling, because every single one has a video of it. So that definitely is going to contribute to a major sampling bias, where the vast majority of recorded (as in on video) casualties are coming from drones
It's also worth keeping in mind that artillery is largely guided by drones now as well They're not just shelling a general area. Drones are used for spotting, and then the artillery hits the targets. It's much more precise than people realize.
For example Russian 240mm mortar equpped with modern guidance system have accuracy like few meters, so given how big boom 240mm mortar shells do it basically hits every time
Yeah that's the other part of it, the shell doesn't need to be super accurate because it has a blast radius and produces shrapnel. If you're within a few meters of where it lands, you're going to have a very bad times.
That's a good point! And plus that way you can fire many shells at a target instead of just one explosive with a drone. But at the same time that kind of inflates the amount of shells per casualty, right?
Even if it's dozens of shells per casualty, the sheer volume means that you end up with a lot more casualties than you do from drones overall. It's thousands of shells per day vs thousands of fpv drones a month.
I absolutely agree. I'm more trying to get at where the perception that drones are the vast majority of the fighting vs the reality, and just that it probably is comes down to the nature of drones with regards to the videos that they produce.
Oh I think it's like you said, there's always footage with the drone and also the fact that the west is far behind in artillery shell production, so there's an incentive to paint drones as a new wonder weapon that would allow Ukraine to keep parity.
It should be also noted that artillery is often used to destroy field fortifications and then drones kill now exposed infantry. So it is pretty hard to distinguish casualties from drones and from artillery.
On the other hand, it's indisputable that a drone attack is extremely more visible than artillery shelling, because every single one has a video of it.
This. The sampling bias is enormous. "OSINT" has no chance of coming to a correct conclusion on this because the data they are working with is inherently biased. The only ones who know the real ratios are the general staffs of both armies (and frankly i have serious doubts about the competence of the Ukrainian military to keep accurate track, given that they deliberately don't accurately record casualties so that they have to pay less money out to families of dead soldiers).
Drones are definitely a vital component of a modern army, but i suspect it's more so in auxiliary roles such as reconnaissance and as spotters for artillery. FPV drones are probably overhyped.
The reason why Ukraine uses so many of them is not because they are better than more traditional options, but because they have no choice. They've run out of stockpiles and can't produce artillery shells and rockets in the same amounts that Russia can, let alone the launcher systems. Any production of that kind of military equipment requires large industrial facilities and complex logistics that Ukraine can't keep intact because they get taken out by Russian missiles.
Drones are the only weapons system they can produce because it can be done very decentralized in small, dispersed artisanal workshops. This again reinforces the observed bias toward drone casualties.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)
news
24519 readers
728 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS