Quick answer–NO!! The United States military is outfitted with the most expensive weapons systems in the world. But the process of deciding what to build and deploy is not based on a well-defined national security strategy that recognizes how those systems would be used in a real war. The prime example of the folly of the U.S. Defense industry is the air craft carrier task forces that represents the chief means for the U.S. to project force overseas. Why do I say “folly”? Because the Russians and Chinese have produced and deployed hypersonic missiles that can penetrate the anti-missile systems that are supposed to protect the carriers. In the event of a shooting war with China over Taiwan, any U.S. carriers deployed within 500 miles of China would be sitting ducks.
Andrei Martyanov always does good work, but his latest podcast on this topic is exceptional and merits your attention:
Let me illustrate the profound point that Andrei makes in his video about the difference between the system the United States relies on to produce weapons and the system Russia uses. I will put it simply–the United States produces weapons that cater to a political and bureaucratic priorities while Russia produces weapons based on a strategic national defense plan. In the event of a war, weapon systems and their operators face the risk of being damaged or destroyed. That means they have to be repaired or new ones built. The same goes for the ammunition and shells used by those weapons. The result? The United States is spending billions on the equivalent of Lamborghinis while Russia is buying rugged Toyota 4 wheel drive pick ups. Building new “Lamborghinis” is time consuming and very costly. Building new “Toyota” trucks can be done cheaper and quicker.
If the United States loses an air craft carrier, building a replacement will take years and cost billions of dollars ($12.41 billion for the latest Ford class). The same principle applies to the most “modern” combat jet, the F-35:
With an estimated lifetime cost of $1.6 trillion, the F-35 Lightning II, conceived as a versatile, super stealthy next-generation fighter plane, is the most expensive weapon system ever built. When the program began way back in 1992, the F-35 was supposed to be an affordable one-size-fits-all solution for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. It took until this February for the Air Force to publicly admit that the F-16 replacement failed the affordability test.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781
Take a look at the following video. A Russian drone, the Zala Lancet, locates and destroys a U.S. M777 howitzer:
So what? The Lancet costs thousands to make while one M777 costs $3.738 million. Compare these two weapon systems below. If the Lancet costs $100,000 to produce, that means 38 Lancets can be built for the price of just one M777 howitzer. Each of those Lancets can destroy one M777. You do not need an accounting degree to realize that Russia can destroy a U.S. tank column for a fraction of the cost of building those tanks. Even in war, economics matter.
The Zala Lancet, also known as Lantset, is a kamikaze drone developed by Zala Aero to take out targets on land, in the air and/or in water following the requirements of the Russian Army. The new weapon system has a maximum range of 40 kilometers and can carry out a precision strike autonomously. Besides, the drone has been designed to provide real-time video and imagery to the control station. The air vehicle includes intelligence, navigation and communications modules. The Zala Lancet drone was announced in late June 2019 at the Russian Army Expo exhibition with the development trials already being completed. The Lancet attack drones were deployed successfully by the Russian Armed Forces in Syria targeting Idlib militants in November 2020.
https://www.deagel.com/Defensive%20Weapons/Zala%20Lancet/a003898
I believe that the Lancet is priced in the thousands of dollars (I have not been able to find a specific price but it is described as “cost effective.” If you know the price let me know.)
The M777 cost is US$2.025 million per one unit (domestic cost, FY 2008)[11] or $3.738 million per one unit (export cost, FY 2017).[12]
The Russians also have an economic and tactical edge when it comes to the modern battle tank. Compare the newest Russian tank with the latest edition of the U.S. M1-Abrams. The Russian tank weighs 22 tons less than its U.S. counterpart. That makes it more maneuverable and more fuel efficient. It only requires a crew of three because it comes with an automatic loader for shells. The M1-Abrams is still doing it old school, i.e. one crew member has to load the gun.
Russia enjoys a decisive advantage in air defense systems and this has exposed the vulnerabilities of the HIMARS multiple rocket launch system and the HARM missiles. While Russia does not shoot all of them down, the Russian air defense system has stopped most of them. Remember when the HIMARS was touted as a game changer? It failed and now the United States and Ukraine face the challenge of trying to get more rockets and to replace the pricey launchers that have been destroyed by the Russians.
I end where I started. The United States is kidding itself if it thinks it can fight China and Russia. Yet instead of trying to de-escalate tensions, the United States is acting more belligerent and threatening towards Beijing and Moscow. President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, who had been to war, understood the danger of a nuclear war and found a diplomatic solution that kept the peace. President Joe Biden suffers from dementia and does not appear to understand that his bombast and threats are making the world more dangerous.
“($12.41 billion for the latest Ford class)” – “With an estimated lifetime cost of $1.6 trillion, the F-35 Lightning II[…]”
Do I understand correctly that the aircraft is more expensive than an aircraft carrier? HOW???
That figure refers to all of the F-35 produced and the costs of keeping them flying. So, yes.
The cost is higher than you think because the $12.41 billion is the price of the carrier alone. On top of that you have the price of the aircraft and the cost of training the entire crew. The 2019 cost of training an F-35 pilot is $10.17m according to Forbes. On top of that you’re probably going to lose most of the carrier group, if your taking out a carrier group you would go nuclear because that’s where you be at that point. Total cost somewhere around $30-40 billion and perhaps 8,000 men and women.
We should also add maintenance costs … and keep some inventory for replacement parts …
Yup. I guess the a lot of inventory parts would be junk as there would be nothing to fit them to.
Even more than that. US carriers require an entire air carrier battle group to protect these behemoths. Each carrier needs to be escorted with two Aegis missile cruisers, two destroyers, two frigates, a couple submarines, and a supply ship. So don’t just consider the cost of the carrier and its aircraft and crew. You need to consider all of the costs of the entire battle group. In short, these obsolete behemoths look impressive but, as Larry says, they are already obsolete. Every US Admiral knows this but the scam must continue.
The scam continues because the Home Port base for each carrier and its carrier support group feeds local economy of businesses, suppliers, base support personnel–in other words, jobs and voters.
RZ, This 2016 interview with Pierre Sprey, a vociferous early critic of the F-35 who worked at the DOD for 20 years and helped design the A-10 warthog may interest you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Z_DuF87Sc
The A-10 only viable with air superiority. Another example of US assuming it will be up against weaker opponents.
By nuclear, do you mean cause a nuclear explosion. A carrier deployed for combat is a floating ammo dump. So wouldn’t a missile exploding inside the hull of a carrier set off massive internal explosion. And what would be the effect on the reactor? Would all of that set off a Chenobyl like explosion? Asking for a friend
In all seriousness, is that what would happen?
That is so cool that a $100,000 lancet drone could track and take out a 6.2 million dollar Abrams tank.
It’s not like an Abrams has a stealth generator and ECM suites
A regular old AT missile will do the job, the Abrams really isn’t special or cutting edge
Especially with the rise of modern munitions and drone warfare
A tank is basically a big expensive multi person casket/crematorium
The per unit cost depends on configuration. The F-35A (Air Force) is circa $148m and the Navy F-35C is circa $330m. The operating cost per hour is circa $36k.
But why worry? They’ll just pluck more cash from the Magic Money Tree.
The DC Swamp creatures know they can’t fight a conventional land war and keep it limited to being over there, much less win it. They also know they won’t have much time to retool and step up production of replacements.
It is far more likely they would try to do a Bolt out of the Blue first strike. To do that, they’ll have to use massive numbers of “tactical” nukes to suppress the Russian and Chinese launch under attack while the inbound “strategic” nukes make their way to a combination of counterforce and countervalue targets.
Larry, that $1.6 trillion dollars covers the original cost, the cost of parts, the cost of maintenance, the cost of fuel, the cost of Air Force service men to fly and maintain the planes over its planned lifespan of greater than 50 years. In short, it is a bogus number that has never been calculated for any other weapons program.
Currently, the F-35 per unit is less than that of both the F-15 and F-18 and is comparable to that of the F-16. Full rate production has not yet begun and that would reduce per unit costs even more.
What’s bogus is the notion that any weapons system currently in existence will last for fifty years.
Moore’s Law will see to it that it doesn’t.
From a 2014 medium article on the subject the three variants (A, B & C) came in at around 150, 250 and 325 million. And this was only production costs, not r&d.
The article is called ‘ How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost?´
Actually, since the Ford class still hasn’t solved the problems with the elevators which bring missiles and bombs from the armory to the flight deck, no Ford class will be going into harms way for a few years yet.
Solid information. You should send your reports to DAN BONGINO and GREG HUNTER.
The US is fighting the last major war. Our manufacturing capacity is shit, so pivoting to what is needed is near impossible.
The F35 like many other defense projects, creates lots of jobs which pump lots of money into many congressional districts and helps drive our economy and supports the think tanks which create the policies which continue the status quo. But what we are seeing in Ukraine is you don’t need expensive fighters, with elite trained Top Gun fighter pilots, nor expensive HIMARs rockets, when you can overwhelm air defensives and destroy targets using cheap drones. The question is will those vested interests learn the lessons of this conflict or dig in their heels and protect their turf?
Unfortunately the West cannot afford ‘cheap’ military hardware as the cost politically & economically would be eye wateringly expensive.
the russians long ago realized fighter jets are impressive but not a sigle one can outrun a missle.100 missles to one fighter?i’ll have the missles please with a side of low band radar.
I thought the think tanks that create the policies had developed a counter to that, by overwhelming defenses and destroying targets using cheap Ukrainian conscripts.
Good point. Don’t forget all those fanatical young men from many different nations who’ve been brainwashed into fighting US proxy wars from Syria to other places in Southwest Asia and Africa and are now being moved to Ukraine. The US has learned well from the British, how the British were able to maintain their empire.
With help of the many Gunga Dins.
The resupply problem. Ukrainian stocks of cannon fodder are real good, but not infinite.
It probably takes about a week to produce one new drone from iron/aluminum ore and other raw.
How long would it take to produce a new conscript, from the conception?
Larry, Joe Biden strikes me as a test subject for the worst psychiatric medicines that the state department feeds him with.
I mean, the guy was literally talking about how dangerous the situation is and the risk of sleepwalking into a nuclear conflict.
I was surprised by how his concerns don’t even matter. Was his statement followed by any diplomatic manoeuvres by his officials? No.
All efforts to stop nuclear war have been US officials and generals making belligerent threats to Russia not to use nuclear weapons.
I mean he is not the person to hate in this conflict. Victoria Nuland is.
Or her boss, George Soros.
Or her mentor, Madeleine (it’s all worth it) Albright.
How is this Nuland, in a subordinate role, so powerful she virtually directs cabinet on foreign policy? Does she even have decision making capacity at that level?
Isn’t the Obama holdover lady massively influential for Biden on foreign strategy? The biracial lady.
Susan Rice.
I can see why Nuland is considered extreme and dangerous but Blinken and Rice, DOD, and the AG would in my view be key drivers of foreign policy. Or is that not the case?
If Victoria “Fuck the EU!” Nuland reports to Susan Rice than we are all in deep doo-doo.
Hate, man. The next step up (or down) from being an ideologue. What’s more racist than hate? Nuland considers herself whiter than Europe, whiter than the Russians, whiter than the Germans, and probably holds the Ukraine, and Zelensky, in uttered and complete contempt. It’s Russia Nuland wants. At all costs.
You want to see one of Hillary Clinton’s “white supremacists?” Look no further than Victoria Nuland. And if Nuland is working for either Rice or Obama than that’s a white supremacist working for black supremacists.
Yes, adipose tissue, when exposed is white
How did the granddaughter of a vicous Nazi propagandist rise to boss the son of a Cuban dictator around in Canada? Strange things happen in the topsy turvey world of the ‘great game’. Except, it ain’t no game.
Nuland is certainly one of the people to hate. But this administration’s decision-making is awfully opaque, especially on foreign policy. It’s not clear to me that it’s fully transparent even to insiders.
Outsiders don’t know Susan Rice’s or Soros’ role for sure, but it’s reasonable to assume they’re very influential.
What role might others not (or no longer) in government still play? Valerie Jarret? Brennan, Clapper? Obama himself?
The central problem is that America’s real rulers appear to be a shadowy, completely unaccountable junta of neo-progressi-con ideologues, comprising unelected bureaucrats, political appointees and ostensibly ’emeritus’ figures like Rice. From that it follows that America is now just a very wealthy, very powerful banana republic. The lack of transparency and accountability is very dangerous. It’s the feature that makes the junta or its elements most likely to miscalculate
Trying to figure out who calls the shots on what issues in Washington reminds me a lot of Kremlinology back during the Cold War. Our ‘experts’ would comb through official Soviet media looking for clues as to who had the upper hand.
America is a “TV” with 30 nutters on the lounge room sofa, each with their own hand held remotes. It’s called foreign policy, military policy, BBB, MAGA , voodoo economics ……whatever.
The US Navy don’t pass their own test no more. Only going to take one rumble and it’s over, then all the nutters with remotes have left is nukes. So do a lot of other folks. To quote the Irish, “ it is what it is.” (A shit show.)
@jm
We need to stop looking for a single person or entity “calling the shots.” We long ago passed into some kind of global techno oligarchy. Think criminal cartel. Western governments are a complex agglomeration of criminal syndicates that coalesce and fragment around their various complimentary and competing interests.
So, for example, in the US the government consists of the Military Industrial Complex, the Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Uniparty pols, Intel Complex (4th Branch of government per Sundance), Big Media, Big Corp, and others. All of these cartel members have their own interests they pursue in and out of the federal government. Each has their own ‘turf’ they viciously protect— imagine a criminal gang that runs the casino racket– and other areas they cooperate on w others as necessary.
Now picture the White House being essentially a clearinghouse of sorts for this Cartel, proposing policies that need to be cleared with each Cartel member if possible. When the policy harms a member’s interests we see leaks, blowback, confusion, walkbacks, outright sabotage depending on how powerful the member is and the harm to their interest.
As a practical example look at the policy of escalation in Ukraine. The MIC faction is one of the most powerful members. They have a critical interest in making sure that the Cartel policy never goes beyond provocations into open and especially nuclear war. They want another Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria where billions must be spent yearly on expensive weapons. They do NOT want a war that will collapse their racket, so the MIC will absolutely kabosh any policy that goes too far. (Danger being a miscalculation that gets out of their control).
The only way to end this Cartel is by systemic collapse and or a revolution that drastically alters US politics.
The collapse is coming. We all feel it. What co.es after?
“Kremlinology back during the Cold War.”
One of the practices of “Kremlinologists” in the 1970’s was to assess the order of importance of members of the Politburo by the time they spent, and the centrality of their position, atop the Lenin Mausoleum each November.
November in Moscow tends to be cold and the prevaling wind flows across Red Square from St. Basil’s Cathedral to the Lenin Museum.
Most of Politburo members during the 1970’s were elderly men.
There were no toilet facilities atop the Lenin Mausoleum and consequently Members of the Politburo regularly moved from and to the top of the Lenin Mausoleum in matters of relief.
Hence “Kremlinologists” often relied on the bladder functions of Members of the Politburo to assess the order of importance of members of the Politburo.
Quite apart from the fact that the M1 Abrams is gas turbine powered, like the T-80, but unlike the T72 and T90 which are most of the Russian force. Maintaining gas turbines is a wholly different ballgame from the diesels that are much easier to maintain without specialist training.
Not to mention the fuel consumption which requires a massive logistical train just to keep them fueled.
It worked in Iraq because Iraq had nothing to hit back with. Russia on the other hand..
Gas turbines burn three times more fuel and produce four times the heat signature. Their fuel is also explosive and very difficult to extinguish.
https://usawatchdog.com/there-may-not-be-a-2024-election-martin-armstrong/
Same approach as space: they designed the original space shuttle as a Ferrari version of a spacecraft, then subjected it to budget cuts rendering it more along the lines of a home-made kit car. Russia designed their rockets more like Kenworth trucks, durable and build to last. Oh, and cheaper, especially when you consider they didn’t blow up on take-off. Practical, and built for purpose and economy. Simple, easy to make and repair. Good for an effective military, not so hot for corporate profits.
About the Abrams: American, Brutish, and Scholzistani propaganda still insists a tank loader crewman is an advantage because
1. It’s allegedly faster than an autoloader to load shells by hand
2. A fourth crewman is supposedly necessary to relieve the other three in their duties.
Apparently this argument failed to convince the French, South Koreans, Japanese and Chinese, all of whom, like the Russians, design their tanks with autoloaders. Meanwhile manually loaded tanks need to be big enough to accommodate a fourth crew member, who has to be able to move around and fetch shells from ammunition lockers etc, meaning larger size, heavier weight, more load on the engine, lesser relative mobility and/or reduced range, etc.
I read a few days ago that the latest projected Abrams model is going to abandon its vaunted turbine engine (another much propagandised “advantage” that save goods mobility for its weight but at the cost of short range and maintenance requirements) to switch to a diesel engine and….will include an autoloader.
I look forward to the explanation of why an autoloader is suddenly the better option. They will explain it, right?
Was at a unit (Cavalry) reunion earlier in the year. Had an ex member of the Squadron (conscript who did 2 years) try and convince me that the Russians were losing a large number of tanks because they had – an auto loader. His argument was that because of the auto-loader there was a heap of ammo just lying around in the tank and any hit sets it off. Didn’t accept my reply – did he have a good look in a fully bombed up Centurion (or Leopard for that matter) – in the Leopard the loader was surrounded by 20 rounds that were stored around the turret ring and the commander and gunner were sitting on another four, with another 50+ stashed beside the driver ……..
Having acted as a loader on both types – auto has got to be faster. When the commander calls the fire order (ie type of round) the loader opens the breech, selects the round from the storage area, shoves it into the breech, picks up the next round, hits the safety switch and yells “Loaded”. Mind you, as a commander, it was taught that you traveled with a round up the breech (type selected depending on the imminent threat) and you just fired that round off as the first shot – in Leopard normally HEAT or APDS. In Vietnam the Cents traveled with a canister round up the spout as the targets (especially in close country) would be infantry (with or without an RPG).
“The United States military is outfitted with the most expensive weapons systems in the world”
But. Best for actual use are the least sophisticated (for reliability, production) cheapest weapon systems that fit the requirements.
The US Empire perspecive values illusion and deception. The US Empire is all about posturing and bragging => more complex and more expensive = illusion of better = bragging rights.
exactly!we are taught to believe a 500 dollar Coach purse carries your makeup better than the 20 dollar knockoff.
In the 11 weeks from HARM introduction to Ukraine, Russia reports 2,159 interceptions/shootdowns by its Air Defense systems, including 107 HARM.
In the same period, 15 HIMARS claimed destroyed or damaged (neutralised), thus HIMARS/Okhla/MLRS intercepts down from 180+ per week to 80-100 p.w.
Compare this to the 1,366 claimed intercepts/shootdowns in the 11 weeks prior to HARM.
Three major US weapons systems:
HARM: Apparently easily intercepted and totally ineffective against an integrated AD system. Total failure.
HIMARS: Easily intercepted and effects significantly degraded by enemy integrated AD system.
Marginally effective at best, certainly not a “game-changer”.
M777: Up to 62 claimed destroyed, additional units claimed damaged (neutralised). Persistent reports of system fragility and unreliability in battlefield conditions.
Marginally effective.
So far, there does not appear to have been any unequivocal success for a US/Nato weapon system in Ukraine.
In a not too hypothetical air war US vs. Russia, the “vaunted” F-35s and nearly all of the other fighter aircraft involved will be blown out of the sky in a matter of days by the overwhelming superiority of Russia’s layered Air Defense. I won’t even bother mention that the bases from they flew from will then be in turn destroyed by Russia’s strategic missile forces, like the Kaliber, Iskander, Zircon, and Dagger. There will be nothing to hold Russia back at that point. It is just sitting and waiting for this scenario to happen having started to prepare for it over a decade ago.
Fact: The Cessna 172, piloted by a German teenager, is the only proven Soviet A/D penetrator.
If you listen to LPR and DPR commanders they say the HIMARS are effective as they hit targets accurately and can hit until the target is destroyed, they also push back attacking lines to get out of the range of HIMARS.
They may not be a game changer but arguably the few that are there have made a significant difference in altering offensive strategy on the Russian side. Giving the Ukranians more room between fronts and greater range.
Therefore I would say of all the junk chucked up Ukraine’s arse these have been the most effective.
If I was in combat facing 20 HIMARS v 20 standard drones the HIMARS would be more worrying due to range, visibility and damage.
HIMARS don’t fire that fast, plus need visuals, but notes will be taken and the weapon upgraded, this is still a good weapon to have in your locker I think. If you can afford it.
The facts on the ground are that prior to the Ukies receiving those weapons the Russians were successfully advancing and grinding them down, with an enormous advantage in artillery, while after that the advances stopped.
Of course other factors played a role too — Ukrainian mobilization coinciding with Russian manpower actually decreasing due to contracts running out, etc.
And then there is a the really big one — this is an unequal fight in which the Russians have, either through their own suicidally stupid stubbornness, or because of constraints that have not been made public, to fight with a huge handicap. In an all-out war, presumably all the NATO AWACS planes and drones would be down in the first half an hour and the satellites would be jammed and/or destroyed. And then it’s HIMARS without targeting vs. the superior range and firepower of the equivalent Russian (and perhaps Belarussian too, the Polonez-M is even more powerful on paper) MLRS.
While what we have right now is an unequal asymmetric battle in which the strongest capabilities of one of the sides are untouchable for non-technical reasons.
But the facts remain — without the influx of Western weapons Ukraine may well have been thoroughly defeated by now, but what we have instead is the current situation, which is anything but that.
So in that sense it was indeed a game changer, and it is not to be underestimated.
P.S. Notice how we also don’t see a lot of TOS-1A footage compared to earlier in the war. That is because the TOS-1A is a short-range system and earlier in the war the Ukies didn’t have the means to destroy it. But now they do so the TOS-1A can only be used where it is safe to do so. And that has of course substantially hampered the clearing out of Ukie positions.
“(T)he United States produces weapons that cater to a political and bureaucratic priorities while Russia produces weapon systems based on a strategic national defense plan.” Put another way: in Russia engineers produce weapon systems designed to be used by soldiers; in the US (and West) engineers produce weapon systems for the benefit of corporate shareholders ($$$$$$$$$$$)
“The United States is kidding itself if it thinks it can fight China and Russia. Yet instead of trying to de-escalate tensions, the United States is acting more belligerent and threatening towards Beijing and Moscow”.
What does this tell you? For me it all goes back to this dichotomy of ‘stupid’ vs. ‘intentional’. When something looks stupid, ask yourself what might be going on under the surface appearance of things.
Maybe some small, very powerful group of individuals want the USA to get into a ridiculous war with two peer adversaries. Why? To destroy America of course! Many of this group have stated this quite openly.
The bottom line right now is The Great Re-set. Everything you see happening is in support and furtherance of this new world order. When it is ‘too stupid to be stupid’, it is INTENTIONAL.
Totally agree FGB3, the WEF/NWO plan will only work if each country is systematically destroyed, the populations on the verge of starvation and crying out for a saviour….any saviour. Look at Europe, their politicians seem to be imbicilic in the destruction of their own economies, but dig a little deeper and you’ll discover almost every one of them is bought and paid for by the WEF. 83% of the world’s population has rejecting this satanic abomination and the guaranteed success of Russia will ensure that the WEF, it’s insane leaders, and their depopulation/slavery agenda will be crushed.
That resonates with Jef Demolders thoughts on the subject, https://jefdemolder.blogspot.com/2022/10/how-to-analyze-current-events.html
Absolutely correct Kissinger and Co. The mkinnder map, the world Island 🏝 despite all if the USA Republic can be restored it helps all. A destination without a usa Republic version not this neo liberalism Kissinger rules based nousance wuld server.
The US builds weapons to make money. The Russians build weapons to work.
The Russian tank shown is a T-90 from the 90s. Now a bit long in the tooth and rather vulnerable to anti-tank,although otherwise good. What Larry is talking about is the Armata, which is a true 4th generation tank not yet on line, which is explained in the link he provides. I wrote about the vulnerability of the F35 a couple of years ago.And about American carriers in my articles on the probable outcome of war with China on my Substack site. The US military is paleolithic. Too big. Too heavy. A Neanderthal. However, it really comes down to a difference in mentalities as I write here:
https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/russia-rollin-rollin-the-update #julianmacfarlane #newsforensics #putin #ukrainevictory #war This article also credit’s Larry’s writings.
In the US, the govt works for defense companies. In Russia, the defense companies work for the nation.
Why do people have to be unkind to Neanderthals ………. (Laugh)
Remember, we “white folks” are 3-4% Neanderthal. Only “pure” Africans who never left the continent are real Homo Sapiens. Don’t say this in a Red Neck bar…
Both European and Asians/Chinese carry Neanderthal DNA. Both subsets of the human race have built huge civilisations and made massive scientific advances.
Meanwhile those without haven’t. In fact quite the opposite.
Is that few percent the reason for such creativity?
It’s a question no scientist dares ask.
Maybe it is the 3% v the 4 % in the West now. I’m betting Biden is a 4 percenter Neanderthal or outlier at 15%.
The world is counting on the 3 percenters to do what’s right.
aircraft carriers?we must ask why the U.S.ASS retired the largest ships ever built (by weight).12 inch hull platting,16 inch steel magazine deck.have you ever seen a 16 inch steel plate,WOW.hint:they were vulnerable from air attack.aircraft carriers?
Since no one is ready to use latest war gadgets for fear of killing exports market later gives hope that MIC is not consumed with ideology. A point missed here is that Lancet payload is not much. Just about 3 Kg. So it is not even breaching armor as such, but probably just sufficient explosion to disable the armored carrier systems. If you think MIC cost of production is high, you aint seen the maintenance price. One reason why India tries its best to not buy anything strategic from U. S MIC. It’s a suffocating trap. That said, you need to also know that Russia doesn’t produce anything too cheap either. Yes relatively cheap but the chaps at Russian MoD have tendency to overthink and not build to purpose. Rather get too immersed in engineering to cover every possible scenario. Consider that SU MK 30 flying cost is no lesser than that of F16. No one is fighting WW2 or WW3. The new model of fighting evolves from Mid East and Afghanistan. Low intensity but confined in scope but sufficient conflict to keep war mongers happy and nations ego intact. Some specific examples of mid east way of: 1. Buy out enemy commanders 2. Use civilian shield 3. Use differentiated fighting units composition- fanatics/fodder etc 4. Swarm technique 5. Psychotropic for troops on front 6. Small enabled units with RPG etc 7. High system integration skills. In Peshawar they will put up tank for you in market for example. I am surprised why Russia did not learn much from Syria. That said this has all very important ramifications. Ukraine is close to reaching inflection point, as it gets to losing most of soviet era economical warfare machines and gets on board expensive NATO system, which are designed for shock and awe victories and not months long attritional warfare with assured Walmart priced supplies. A ramification for future is that each country has to truly diversify its infrastructure to remove single point of failures and build low cost military industrial base. I am keen to see what industrial revolution Russia is going to come up with to produce sustained low cost armaments. Many here may not know but Pakistan ordinance factories are producing big time for coalition of willing right now. No wonder they got off FATF graylist.
You asked about the Russians learning from Syria. I think they did.
Look at the way they are fighting this war.
1) They are letting the enemy come to them.
2) They appear to be caring more for their civilians than the Ukies
3) They value their soldiers as men who have learned some hard truths.
I think the reconciliation process in Syria taught the Russians about human terrain and how to cope. It appears that they have given up on shock and awe style points for themes and tactics that are low in human life cost and effective in punishing the enemy.
The US is hoping that it’s adversaries take it’s threats at face value and react accordingly but that’s the mindset of an schoolyard bully – Biden’s dementia is causing him to revert to his younger self in terms of behaviour – a pathological liar and compulsive bullshitter . He’s seems to have no understanding of the way his words are perceived by his opponents who are becoming more hardline then they usually are due to him shooting his mouth off – This isn’t going to end well if it goes to the endgame
The West is arrogant but not that stupid.
They have zero intention of fighting on either or both fronts.
They do, however, continually need to convince their home audience, incl. NATO & sundry hangers on that this is indeed their intention, just to maintain a semblance of control over their current unipolar hegemonic disintegration.
It’s a high-wire act sans net and they’re punch drunk on their own self importance to boot.
Look out below!
The US reliance on carriers and their cost. Reminds me of the mistake the Japanese made in the years between the World Wars building battleships. Yes they got around to carriers but Al that money, time and materials could not be replaced.
How soon the Americans forgot the lesson of the Panzer vs. the Sherman from WW II.
After WWII USA absorbed Japan and Germany and became what they once were.
Larry, couldn’t find Lancet 3 price. But old “pilot/engineer” guess, considering components, I could put one together for >$20K. Iran is knocking out their (similar but bigger) S136 pusher drones for $10 – 50K, depending on armaments. Lancet has simple warhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
A lot of the “argument” for a four man crew in a US Tank is an acknowledgement that the Army won’t/can’t crew them to 100%. They can work with three when they are short handed. Of course when you have to design them for a four man crew, the turret has to be bigger and taller, making it harder to conceal. Look at Russian tanks versus the M1 and you can see it’s much taller. The days of tank shells on the floor of a tank is outdated. The 120 gun of the M1 (and much of Nato as it is a German gun) uses shells that are consumed in firing. Only thing on the floor of the tank is a very small base piece of the round.
“Same approach as space: they designed the original space shuttle as a Ferrari version of a spacecraft, then subjected it to budget cuts rendering it more along the lines of a home-made kit car. Russia designed their rockets more like Kenworth trucks, durable and build to last”
The “show-off” effect vs the “ugly but reliable” wisdom?
Can Russian Air defenses hit the F35, I have no idea. But what I do know is that the S300 can shoot down aircraft at over 200km as it did just 2 weeks ago.
I also know that Pantsir and even the old S200 is damn good at shooting down cruise missiles as we saw 4 years ago in Syria.
In a war of attrition you don’t have to kill all your enemies, just enough so their military can no longer effectively function. Our over reliance on expensive weapons systems that are not easily replaced make us very vulnerable.
I am not military, but it does not require that to know NATO requires air superiority & Russia has demonstrated in Ukraine that NATO does not have that. Use of hypersonic missiles (strategic shock & awe Russian style) is just where that starts (S300 still effective->S550, & newest is?).
Eliminate air support superiority then it becomes a lower cost industrial air & ground war, & Russia is set up for that. (I listen to Andrei Martyanov too, & understand some of it)
But that is not what this is about. This is about 100 years of accumulating sovereign debt in exchange for rag paper & special ink, in exchange for massive yearly interest payments now of $1.4 Trillion USD. Constant warfare with high cost, destruction + rebuilding what was destroyed, means massive sovereign accumulating yearly deficits. Socialism, & now high cost ‘Green’ economy means even greater yearly accumulating debt.
Scale of criminal theft is insane, with nothing to show for it.
The EU has shifted their MIC burden to the US (NATO) but has made up for the Sovereign debt accumulating by greater Socialism & earlier shift to ‘Green’.
This is Sovereign debt bankster Grift game. Russia is not playing it so they are targeted.
This is the greatest criminal operation in the history of mankind, & results in enslavement of the human species.
Did we watch the same video? Martyanov’s entire point was that while America runs its MIC to maximize profit, Russia runs its MIC to maximize killing the enemy – a social end. In other words parts of the Russian economy (the important parts) are using the socialist mode of production.
Did the Soviet Union really collapse? Or is it just on hiatus?
Best socialist MIC I can think of is America’s with its cost + contracts and inventory management. Reminds me of the Soviet Gosplan.
Smart countries don’t fight wars. Bankers fight wars for debt.
I like Andrei Martyanov. I like what he says, mainly. I much more pefure reading him than listening to him. Sometimes it’s the way he says things that drives me to change the channel. To say that Martyanov can be a bit harsh is an understatement. And yet, I always find my way back to clicking on his channel. I listen to as much as I can, and I change the channel.
Perhaps it’s the bias Martyanov has against the west that sometimes makes him come across as an ideologue. I know you should expose yourself to all kinds, but it’s the ideologues that really turn me off.
“Nazis. I hate those guys.”
The anger, the almost howling contempt for the west (mainly the United States), the patronizing and condescending attitude. It gets on a westerner’s nerves.
He old enough to be remnant of the old Soviet Union. Still a communist at heart? I don’t mind his commentary and criticism of my country, but some of it is like talking about family — my family. When you start coming after my family, you’ve gone too far.
“Commies. I hate those guys.”
Did you know that he lives outside of Seattle (and has for many years)?
you should listen more closely when talks about the Great Patriotic War.you may then understand his opinion of NAZIS,i do.
I agree he’s too strict at times… And he not only lives in USA but repeatedly says he likes (some?) american people and sees hope in that…
My take is that Andrei loved/respected the US that was (back in the 80s – e.g., his musical preferences), not the current idiocracy.
Not only does Martyanov live in the US but he said he is a US citizen, so your country happens to be his country. He also explained in a recent program how he came to the US during the awful Russian 1990s. I read his anger (which can be grating it’s true) as the creed of high expectations (as opposed to the bigotry of low expectations). It’s not a bias against the west. He is expecting better from the country he has chosen as his own, probably more demanding than someone who was born by chance in the US. And it is clear he’s getting more exasperated by the day at the degradation of education and culture, and at the corruption of everything. Not only is he not insulting your family, he’s probably more committed to the idea of the USoA than you are.
“he’s [Martyanov] probably more committed to the idea of the USoA than you are.”
And how would you know? You don’t know me. Hate much?
You must be from the Cancel You club. “You will have a job, a country, be a citizen, have a house, a home, a neighborhood, safety in your persons, property, and possessions” until some asshole like you comes along and says I don’t.
Hate much? Slightly deranged, are you?
Andrei keeps calling people uneducated idiots to the point where it annoys me.
This was my very first time to watch him. I had never heard of him before. He is a little difficult to understand because he speaks too fast. He should speak slower to be better understood.
My summary of what I understood him to say:
Russian weapons are designed to kill the enemy. American weapons are designed for jobs.
America has no experience at defending its homeland. Russia knows how to defend Mother Russia.
Who can disagree with his comment, “ignorant Americans?”
I think you’ve watched too much slick Western media to appreciate the profound substance of what he said.
I am applying to RT to be a Host and I would have him on regularly along with Larry, et al.
This will be the opening to some of my shows if RT hires me:
https://youtu.be/8kdf_gCg_VM
P.S. In general, all of you are clearly brilliant but the main problem is you speak over the average ‘ignorant American’s’ head. The only way to prevail is to repackage with new genuine leadership clarifying the situation in simple easy to understand language.
P.P.S. If I interviewed Andrei Martyanov, I bet I could get you to like him.
You are too precious; a typical “westerner’ that can’t do self criticism.
All of AM’s criticisms and denouncements are 100% accurate and deserving.
Andrei is no nonsense black and white and his trade was learnt from veterans of the Great Patriotic War.. probably at least doctrines he learnt….and we are talking an all out total war where the rules of land warfare where not followed and tens of millions died by enemy action….where the Nation fought for existential necessity….probably the most brutal of all wars based on ferocity and numbers….where one of the most powerful armies of all time scattered it’s manpower to the tune of 80% on the motherland…..so yes he is abit passionate but I give him that….. unfortunately his voice puts me to sleep everytime and I need to listen to his short videos or whatever you kids call them these days…a few times. He is actually on record saying he immigrated to the United States for it’s ideals and quality of life but in recent years he cannot recognize the Nation anymore….to that effect anyways and I’m sure most Americans will agree
“The United States is spending billions on the equivalent of Lamborghinis while Russia is buying rugged Toyota 4 wheel drive pick ups.”
Correct my history if I’m wrong, but isn’t this situation the reverse of WWII, when the Germans had very finely engineered equipment but the US could churn out cheaper weapons with less maintenance requirements? If this is true, not only the US military have not learnt new lessons but have even forgotten valuable ones they already knew.
Correct!!!
The United States has fought all these “exotic” conflicts — in North Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan — and has failed spectacularly. Proof of this how the United States has now had to resort to terrorism and regime change (in places like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Germany, Europe, the Ukraine, right here at home, and God knows where else).
So now, after its worst defeat ever in Afghanistan, it wants to turn the clock back to trying its hand at a more conventional conflict. War in Europe. “Let’s do the time warp again!”
The United States rather un-ceremonial exit from Afghanistan [heavy sarcasm] was not its worst retreat ever. Saigon, man. That topped them all. That should have been a regime change for the Military Industrial Complex. But it wasn’t.
However, regime change for the United States is just doubling down. Doubling down: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. ”
My Honda Accord has the well-deserved reputation of being “bullet proof.” Simple, well-defined design, exceptional execution, quality construction, built to last. Honda tells me I’ll have the car until either the engine or the transmission goes. This is the exact opposite of what the Military Industrial Complex is putting out there. There’s nothing “bullet proof” in the US arsenal. During World War II the Army could change the engine and the transmission in a Sherman Tank, hose out the remaining body parts, and have it back in action the next day. This is what bullet proof used to look like.
My father commanded a tank group back in the 1950s. In 2006, his old base, Fort Knox, was having a reunion and invited my father to attend. He was allowed to inspect an M1A Abrams inside and out. I think they even took him for a ride.
Once back home, he didn’t say anything, but when we got together after his return, I asked him about his experience, and the difference between his old M47 Patton, which were practically brand new in the 1950s, and the M1A1 Abrams.
Just as an aside, when my father was in the service, they were running around in five (5) different kinds of tanks. And the Sherman tank was one of them.
He wasn’t sure, and he wouldn’t say. He just gave me the hairy eyeball. But I could tell something didn’t sit right with him.
Can the United States fight a two-front war? God, you better hope the United States can fight a one-front war.
You don’t resort to blowing up civilian infrastructure worth tens of billions of dollars laydown sanctions, confiscate hundreds of billions of dollars in money from another nation, rig elections, carry out regime change, resort to assassination, confiscate the private property of other nations, and then not take responsibility for your actions, and not declare war on somebody. Not if you have an effective fighting force.
Chicken shit moves like this are beneath those of a righteous nation.
A war between russia & US or china & US will become a nuclear war because conventional US forces (land forces in europe and navy in china sea) will be massacred and slaughtered and with no industrial base and strong population the US will not be able to replenish the destroyed hardware and personel.
but even in the nuclear war (tactical and global) the US will suffer massive losses against russia and china as they both have working ABM unlike US forces.
the end result might be the destruction of US as we know it.. Pity , USA can be saved if they become a normal nation and not an empire. But alas the arrogant leaders of USA wont back down and this i fear is the fate of US , destroyed in nuclear fire and the remaining place will be so irradiated no one would touch CONUS for decades
What you say is compelling. Do you live in America? If so, why, given your analysis above?
Where can Americans move to, to escape this possible/probable fate?
And if Russia is so great, why did Andrei Martyanov move to America? Ditto for any Russian living here.
Even if you highly informed individuals know of a safe haven, would you share it?
Do any of you place any confidence in a new leaders(s) emerging and changing our trajectory towards collapse and ruination?
@Jim Giles
Please no hard questions for Bunty-Loco. I am sure he has a foolproof plan in case of a nuke war. He will just hide under his mother’s dining table.
Any neutral country in the southern hemisphere should be fine. If they want you, that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Hemisphere
None of those countries look appealing me.
What about Russia?
https://mytischi-city.ru/fullnew-181-lantset3-na-chto-sposoben-rossijskij-dronkamikadze.html
“However, the cost of drones is very high, and the guarantees that they will return after completing the next task are extremely illusory. This problem is solved by the use of the so-called “kamikaze drones”. The Russian army is armed with the Lancet-3 loitering ammunition.
It costs several tens of times less than traditional drones, which can be used several times. But the effectiveness of its use exceeds all expectations. The opponent suffers greatly from attacks where it is used.”
https://www.vesti.ru/article/2552094
From this article:
Alexander Zakharov created a company for the production of drones 15 years ago. He started with an ordinary circle – he was the champion of Russia in aircraft modeling sports. No one believed that he would be able to establish a modern high-tech production of flying drones.
How far behind are we in these technologies?
– This is generally the wrong question. Today, I believe that not only we have not lagged behind, but there are already trends that Israel is copying some things from us, – Zakharov emphasized.
Now they even make electronics here themselves. Modern machines. Unique materials and technologies. But each drone is assembled by hand.
The wings and fuselages are made of carbon fabric and are first cut out like some kind of jacket. Only not with scissors, but with a laser. Then the fabric is coated with epoxy resin and placed in a pressure oven.
To hunt drones, you will need at least such a gun. It is also produced here. The device jams the radio signal of commercial drones and prevents them from flying in restricted areas.
– Can your drones be neutralized with such a gun?
– Not. Firstly, our drones are quite immune to any possible jamming and electronic warfare providers. Secondly, after all, such products are intended primarily for a specific market. They are primarily designed for widespread drones that are freely available,” said Nikita Khamitov, head of special projects at ZALA AERO GROUP.
To combat military drones, all the same Lancets will be required. With their help, aerial mining is carried out. This term was first introduced by Izhevsk designers. A new word in military tactics. A real weapon of the XXI century. Several drones patrol the area and present an insurmountable obstacle for enemy drones.
“The speeds they have are about 150 kilometers per hour, and we will do it quite calmly with our 300s,” Alexander Zakharov emphasized.
– That is, they can be sent into the sky and make such a mine screen for several hours?
While aerial mining is being worked out by ramming balloons. Combat trials are yet to come.
The latest development of the Izhevsk company is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft with a wingspan of five meters. This is the first drone with a hybrid engine. Able to fly for almost a day.
“If you run out of fuel or suddenly there are some emergency situations with an internal combustion engine, there is enough electricity to return from the farthest point and land completely calmly,” said Alexander Zakharov.
All these drones are launched from pneumatic catapults. Drones, as they say, are dual-purpose – they are actively used in the civilian sphere. With their help, the Ministry of Emergency Situations conducts search work for missing people, monitors forest fires. This is many times faster and cheaper than ordering a helicopter.
Throughout April, the Udmurt Ministry of Emergency Situations daily monitors the flood situation from the sky in order to be ready and not to miss when water pours into settlements.
For 10 years now, these drones have been flying over the fields of Nizhnevartovsk, looking for oil leaks and illegal tie-ins into oil pipelines. Some devices are equipped with gas analyzers to detect gas leaks and magnetometers to search for minerals.
There are vertical takeoff and landing drones. Some return to earth by parachute. And in order not to damage expensive equipment and cameras during landing, a shock-absorbing cushion is also inflated around the fuselage.
But for the “Lancets” landing is not provided at all. These are kamikaze drones, and they only fly one way.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5063677
From this article: he cost of the Russian KUB-UAV is not disclosed, for foreign counterparts it is up to $160,000, depending on the characteristics.
ZALA Aero does not disclose the cost of the CUBE. If we compare the KUB with Israeli systems, then the Green Dragon loitering ammunition, created by the IAI concern (these kamikaze UAVs can also be used from ships), as well as Aeronautics’ Orbiter 1K, has a similar purpose and similar weight and size characteristics, continues Denis Fedutinov.
The cost of Orbiter 1K can be indirectly estimated by the fact that in 2012 Finland purchased 45 complexes (four devices each) of a comparable Orbiter 2 for €23 million.
The cost of each drone, therefore, amounted to about $160,000.
At the same time, Denis Fedutinov believes that a Russian-designed device should probably cost four to five times cheaper.
If we consider the marine KUB-UAV as a “classmate” of Green Dragon, then we can talk about a fivefold difference in price only if we understand all the characteristics of the compared configurations, emphasizes Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine. “Some of the costs for Russian manufacturers are lower, for example, the wage fund, but others are significantly higher: overhead costs or imported components of the electronic component base (ECB), if they are involved.” According to him, if the device is equipped with a modern ECB, this will increase the cost.
An approximate functional analogue of the Green Dragon is the American Switchblade 600 loitering ammunition, but with half the flight duration (about 40 minutes), Viktor Murakhovsky notes. He recalls that the US Department of Defense purchased the Switchblade 300 version (with a flight duration of 15 minutes) for $22.8 million for 4,000 sets, which gives an average price of less than $6,000 per unit. However, the takeoff weight and payload of the Switchblade 300 is significantly less than that of the KUB.
Meanwhile, the live cams are still working:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z22JTkpkPbQ
While the Lamborghini vs Toyota analogy is insightful, I think it speaks more to the battlefield tactics of the combatants than the procurement and strategic paradigms of the relevant ministries of defense and military industrial complexes. Both Russia and the US produce fighter jets, howitzers, MLRS and drones. In my experience comparable Russian products tend to be less expensive than American counterparts, which reinforces the Lamborghini vs Toyota analogy . However, the market for US products is dominated by, and products designed for- wealthy western countries with large required military spending (NATO/5Eyes) and those with US taxpayer financing. So it is a feature, not a bug because the US MIC does not operate on a strictly economic (or even combat effectiveness/performance) model and because US foreign policy machinery is so intertwined in the global procurement process, similar to how the US congress and industry lobbyists are so involved in the domestic procurement process. (Examples would include the proposed sale of F16s to Pakistan during your CIA days, the development of South Korean KF-21 over and above their F35 needs for carrier based fighters and USFK tribute, as well as the decade plus drama over first the Patriot, then F35s and F16s in Turkey.)
As a footnote I would point out that up until Ukraine became a NATO beard, the Ukrainian MIC was a competitor to the Russian in MIC in more entry level/less integrated military products.
Russian Ambassador to the UK, Mr Andrei Kelin, on the role of the British in Ukraine, the potential use of nuclear weapons, etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBc98FI2t9I
https://mytischi-city.ru/fullnew-181-lantset3-na-chto-sposoben-rossijskij-dronkamikadze.html
“However, the cost of drones is very high, and the guarantees that they will return after completing the next task are extremely illusory. This problem is solved by the use of the so-called “kamikaze drones”. The Russian army is armed with the Lancet-3 loitering ammunition.
It costs several tens of times less than traditional drones, which can be used several times. But the effectiveness of its use exceeds all expectations. The opponent suffers greatly from attacks where it is used.”
https://www.vesti.ru/article/2552094
From this article:
Alexander Zakharov created a company for the production of drones 15 years ago. He started with an ordinary circle – he was the champion of Russia in aircraft modeling sports. No one believed that he would be able to establish a modern high-tech production of flying drones.
How far behind are we in these technologies?
– This is generally the wrong question. Today, I believe that not only we have not lagged behind, but there are already trends that Israel is copying some things from us, – Zakharov emphasized.
Now they even make electronics here themselves. Modern machines. Unique materials and technologies. But each drone is assembled by hand.
The wings and fuselages are made of carbon fabric and are first cut out like some kind of jacket. Only not with scissors, but with a laser. Then the fabric is coated with epoxy resin and placed in a pressure oven.
To hunt drones, you will need at least such a gun. It is also produced here. The device jams the radio signal of commercial drones and prevents them from flying in restricted areas.
– Can your drones be neutralized with such a gun?
– Not. Firstly, our drones are quite immune to any possible jamming and electronic warfare providers. Secondly, after all, such products are intended primarily for a specific market. They are primarily designed for widespread drones that are freely available,” said Nikita Khamitov, head of special projects at ZALA AERO GROUP.
To combat military drones, all the same Lancets will be required. With their help, aerial mining is carried out. This term was first introduced by Izhevsk designers. A new word in military tactics. A real weapon of the XXI century. Several drones patrol the area and present an insurmountable obstacle for enemy drones.
“The speeds they have are about 150 kilometers per hour, and we will do it quite calmly with our 300s,” Alexander Zakharov emphasized.
– That is, they can be sent into the sky and make such a mine screen for several hours?
While aerial mining is being worked out by ramming balloons. Combat trials are yet to come.
The latest development of the Izhevsk company is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft with a wingspan of five meters. This is the first drone with a hybrid engine. Able to fly for almost a day.
“If you run out of fuel or suddenly there are some emergency situations with an internal combustion engine, there is enough electricity to return from the farthest point and land completely calmly,” said Alexander Zakharov.
All these drones are launched from pneumatic catapults. Drones, as they say, are dual-purpose – they are actively used in the civilian sphere. With their help, the Ministry of Emergency Situations conducts search work for missing people, monitors forest fires. This is many times faster and cheaper than ordering a helicopter.
Throughout April, the Udmurt Ministry of Emergency Situations daily monitors the flood situation from the sky in order to be ready and not to miss when water pours into settlements.
For 10 years now, these drones have been flying over the fields of Nizhnevartovsk, looking for oil leaks and illegal tie-ins into oil pipelines. Some devices are equipped with gas analyzers to detect gas leaks and magnetometers to search for minerals.
There are vertical takeoff and landing drones. Some return to earth by parachute. And in order not to damage expensive equipment and cameras during landing, a shock-absorbing cushion is also inflated around the fuselage.
But for the “Lancets” landing is not provided at all. These are kamikaze drones, and they only fly one way.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5063677
From this article: he cost of the Russian KUB-UAV is not disclosed, for foreign counterparts it is up to $160,000, depending on the characteristics.
ZALA Aero does not disclose the cost of the CUBE. If we compare the KUB with Israeli systems, then the Green Dragon loitering ammunition, created by the IAI concern (these kamikaze UAVs can also be used from ships), as well as Aeronautics’ Orbiter 1K, has a similar purpose and similar weight and size characteristics, continues Denis Fedutinov.
The cost of Orbiter 1K can be indirectly estimated by the fact that in 2012 Finland purchased 45 complexes (four devices each) of a comparable Orbiter 2 for €23 million.
The cost of each drone, therefore, amounted to about $160,000.
At the same time, Denis Fedutinov believes that a Russian-designed device should probably cost four to five times cheaper.
If we consider the marine KUB-UAV as a “classmate” of Green Dragon, then we can talk about a fivefold difference in price only if we understand all the characteristics of the compared configurations, emphasizes Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine. “Some of the costs for Russian manufacturers are lower, for example, the wage fund, but others are significantly higher: overhead costs or imported components of the electronic component base (ECB), if they are involved.” According to him, if the device is equipped with a modern ECB, this will increase the cost.
An approximate functional analogue of the Green Dragon is the American Switchblade 600 loitering ammunition, but with half the flight duration (about 40 minutes), Viktor Murakhovsky notes. He recalls that the US Department of Defense purchased the Switchblade 300 version (with a flight duration of 15 minutes) for $22.8 million for 4,000 sets, which gives an average price of less than $6,000 per unit. However, the takeoff weight and payload of the Switchblade 300 is significantly less than that of the KUB.
No, the US cannot fight a two front war, nor “protect” Europe from Russia…
… US officials have pointed the finger at Iran for helping Russia resupply its dwindling weapons stocks. — ZeroHedge
Iran Admits Supplying Russia With Drones For 1st Time
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iran-admits-supplying-russia-drones-1st-time
So what to call US and NATO weapons transfers to Ukraine — hypocrisy? Gotta love the infinitely flexible rules based order… its contortions and waves of cognitive dissonance are endlessly entertaining.
Tuesday, will the US left cheat (again)? Can it? Will Democrats accept defeat? If things don’t go their way politically, what are the odds of prolonged mostly peaceful protests in American cities? If so, will the Democratic Congressional leadership and Biden Administration, not to mention local district attorneys, continue their enthusiastic support?
Continuing…
Will Democratic-left violence in wake of a Red Wave be used to implement the deep state’s domestic violent extremist agenda from the right? Can populists and conservatives be manipulated into consecrating its total surveillance and security state?
Conservatives yes, populists no. They did it before, using 9/11 to go after the militia movement – MAGA’s precursor.
I fully expect more terrorist attacks, and we will be told we must destroy democracy in order to save it, only this time with Azovite NAZIs at the front.
It is highly questionable if the US would somewhat come together for war. There are millions of people that believe the US is invincible. An event that calls that into question like massive power communication outages could tip into complete anarchy in many areas of US. I could envision a Stacey Abrams call for blacks to rise up and fight their real enemies-white republicans. Heck, throw Lebron James with those calling for forced reparations. I see hostile, combative rhetoric in Oakland California regularly and that is with all the free stuff in California.
“If the United States loses an aircraft carrier, building a replacement will take years and cost billions of dollars …”
It is a manifestation of the arrogant inability of the oligarchs who rule the Globalist American Empire to see just how much the world has changed to think that our manufacturing systems will remain intact during a war. Consistent with Mike D.’s observation, social chaos alone will disrupt our defense manufacturing. America’s lesson to the world that diversity is not a strength will be reinforced as comedy then tragedy. Moreover, those who rule the GAE have made it crystal clear PUBLICLY that they want Russia destroyed.
Anyone who thinks that Russians, in response to an attack on their motherland, will not strike targets in America is a fool. Shipyards? … not for long. EBT cards to keep our ferals from reburning formerly American cities and then spilling out into the countryside? … not for long. Interest in helping the GAE prop up its global war to enslave humanity? … not for long. Little safe enclaves like Martha’s Vineyard filled with vapid scorpion people? … not for long.
Horace,
Yes, but a russian kinzhal attack on the US territory is risky as it might engender a retaliatory nuclear strike with no winner
That is where Poseidon comes in – no missile radar signature. Would give a few days to negotiate a de-escalation.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5063677
From this article: The cost of the Russian KUB-UAV is not disclosed, for foreign counterparts it is up to $160,000, depending on the characteristics.
ZALA Aero does not disclose the cost of the CUBE. If we compare the KUB with Israeli systems, then the Green Dragon loitering ammunition, created by the IAI concern (these kamikaze UAVs can also be used from ships), as well as Aeronautics’ Orbiter 1K, has a similar purpose and similar weight and size characteristics, continues Denis Fedutinov.
The cost of Orbiter 1K can be indirectly estimated by the fact that in 2012 Finland purchased 45 complexes (four devices each) of a comparable Orbiter 2 for €23 million.
The cost of each drone, therefore, amounted to about $160,000.
At the same time, Denis Fedutinov believes that a Russian-designed device should probably cost four to five times cheaper.
If we consider the marine KUB-UAV as a “classmate” of Green Dragon, then we can talk about a fivefold difference in price only if we understand all the characteristics of the compared configurations, emphasizes Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine. “Some of the costs for Russian manufacturers are lower, for example, the wage fund, but others are significantly higher: overhead costs or imported components of the electronic component base (ECB), if they are involved.” According to him, if the device is equipped with a modern ECB, this will increase the cost.
An approximate functional analogue of the Green Dragon is the American Switchblade 600 loitering ammunition, but with half the flight duration (about 40 minutes), Viktor Murakhovsky notes. He recalls that the US Department of Defense purchased the Switchblade 300 version (with a flight duration of 15 minutes) for $22.8 million for 4,000 sets, which gives an average price of less than $6,000 per unit. However, the takeoff weight and payload of the Switchblade 300 is significantly less than that of the KUB.
https://mytischi-city.ru/fullnew-181-lantset3-na-chto-sposoben-rossijskij-dronkamikadze.html
“However, the cost of drones is very high, and the guarantees that they will return after completing the next task are extremely illusory. This problem is solved by the use of the so-called “kamikaze drones”. The Russian army is armed with the Lancet-3 loitering ammunition.
It costs several tens of times less than traditional drones, which can be used several times. But the effectiveness of its use exceeds all expectations. The opponent suffers greatly from attacks where it is used.”
https://www.vesti.ru/article/2552094
From this article:
Alexander Zakharov created a company for the production of drones 15 years ago. He started with an ordinary circle – he was the champion of Russia in aircraft modeling sports. No one believed that he would be able to establish a modern high-tech production of flying drones.
How far behind are we in these technologies?
– This is generally the wrong question. Today, I believe that not only we have not lagged behind, but there are already trends that Israel is copying some things from us, – Zakharov emphasized.
Now they even make electronics here themselves. Modern machines. Unique materials and technologies. But each drone is assembled by hand.
The wings and fuselages are made of carbon fabric and are first cut out like some kind of jacket. Only not with scissors, but with a laser. Then the fabric is coated with epoxy resin and placed in a pressure oven.
To hunt drones, you will need at least such a gun. It is also produced here. The device jams the radio signal of commercial drones and prevents them from flying in restricted areas.
– Can your drones be neutralized with such a gun?
– Not. Firstly, our drones are quite immune to any possible jamming and electronic warfare providers. Secondly, after all, such products are intended primarily for a specific market. They are primarily designed for widespread drones that are freely available,” said Nikita Khamitov, head of special projects at ZALA AERO GROUP.
To combat military drones, all the same Lancets will be required. With their help, aerial mining is carried out. This term was first introduced by Izhevsk designers. A new word in military tactics. A real weapon of the XXI century. Several drones patrol the area and present an insurmountable obstacle for enemy drones.
“The speeds they have are about 150 kilometers per hour, and we will do it quite calmly with our 300s,” Alexander Zakharov emphasized.
– That is, they can be sent into the sky and make such a mine screen for several hours?
While aerial mining is being worked out by ramming balloons. Combat trials are yet to come.
The latest development of the Izhevsk company is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft with a wingspan of five meters. This is the first drone with a hybrid engine. Able to fly for almost a day.
“If you run out of fuel or suddenly there are some emergency situations with an internal combustion engine, there is enough electricity to return from the farthest point and land completely calmly,” said Alexander Zakharov.
All these drones are launched from pneumatic catapults. Drones, as they say, are dual-purpose – they are actively used in the civilian sphere. With their help, the Ministry of Emergency Situations conducts search work for missing people, monitors forest fires. This is many times faster and cheaper than ordering a helicopter.
Throughout April, the Udmurt Ministry of Emergency Situations daily monitors the flood situation from the sky in order to be ready and not to miss when water pours into settlements.
For 10 years now, these drones have been flying over the fields of Nizhnevartovsk, looking for oil leaks and illegal tie-ins into oil pipelines. Some devices are equipped with gas analyzers to detect gas leaks and magnetometers to search for minerals.
There are vertical takeoff and landing drones. Some return to earth by parachute. And in order not to damage expensive equipment and cameras during landing, a shock-absorbing cushion is also inflated around the fuselage.
But for the “Lancets” landing is not provided at all. These are kamikaze drones, and they only fly one way.
In the late 1990s, the pentagon asked us to bid on a specific type of capital machine. We’d build this type of machine simplified for cheapie commercial customer price $1 million. For a extreme high spec commercial customer – price $2 million.
Pentagon price ended up $20 million because of numerous change orders.
10x
Question on Russian Hypersonic missiles. Can they just target the American Nuclear silo’s on your soil and use your own Nuclear arsenal to blow you up? Can they reach American soil? Are they that undetectable? Might be a dumb question. Yes or no will suffice. Thanks
Grant,
All current ICBMs are hypersonic. NORAD of course is designed to detect these. NORAD can detect meteors (going much much faster). But in all cases, these are ballistic, easily calculable trajectories
The Khinzal is maneuverable, allowing it to outmaneuver missile defenses. So if you assess that US anti-missile systems work, then yes, the Khinzal has an advantage.
They are not undetectable, but un-shoot-downable. If US sees missiles flying towards silos, it will fire from those silos (which is why false alarms are dangerous). Even if those land based missiles are destroyed, there are enough submarines for mutual assured destruction.
Hitting a nuke, even with another nuke, will not cause it to detonate. Virtually everything in a nuke warhead must function absolutely correctly to initiate a chain-reaction. Scatter radioactive material around yes, detonate no.
….once again with coffee over breakfast on a frosty morning, thinking in the back of my mind about where to take the GSP….
Historically, all nation/states at their terminus relied on their reputation, bling and bluff.
Since we are currently dealing with an issue stemming back to the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, let me use Constantinople as an example:
For hundreds of years after the fall of Rome, the Eastern Empire held sway over the vast riches of the East and its’ trade routes west. Over time it built up the walls of the fortress Constantinople to withstand any invader – and it proved true many times. After fighting many wars it squandered its resources and became poor and poor and smaller and smaller- secure in the knowledge that the wall of its capital will protect it.
Then Islam emerged and conquered the Eastern Empires hinterland and brought the army to Constantinople’s walls in 1453. With the help of a Hungarian who was developing a bronze heavy cannon, Islam smashed the impregnable walls of the City Fortress. Prior to this thou, Orban (the cannon maker) first offered it to Constantine XI, who turned it down due to the cost of its construction and his lack of money. It was later offered to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who ordered the cannon built after learning that it could smash through walls using a large projectile.
Relying on their reputation, bling and bluff is happening again as the US and its’ puppets (NATO/EU/UK) believe their technology is the best (as it is by far the most expensive) and will see their enemies vanquished.
It is being exposed as a bad poker hand, held by people who are bad poker players at the terminus of their Empire. They have given up on negotiations in the false belief that they will always hold the ‘winning hand’ in any battle – period! BLUFFING!
Like Constantine XI, they have positioned themselves in a strategy where they believe their technology will once again protect their position of ‘exceptionalism’ on this globe!
Human folly at its apex! Who will hold them accountable?
…..oh ……my GSP is up and ready.
Larry, yours is an important alarming message for all of us to be concerned. With China’s pattern of having installed hundreds of silo’s, followed by Missle tests, we should be concerned that we may lost our global military advantage, having already lost our national pride.
I am grateful for your work, and to watch the video’s which you deliver to us, and the insights of your readers.
I came to the same conclusion a while back but nobody mentioned it.
Yes, splitting your forces on two fronts is a recipe for disaster.
We study history to avoid the mist . . . .
Russia and China at the same time?
As they say in Britain, you’re ‘avin’ a larf, incha?
In logical times..the logic and honesty of numbers would prevail. And they kind of do if you look at the equation differently. If the role of the Armed Forces is to close with the enemy and destroy them to compel a political settlement in a conflict between States….carried out in the most economical method possible in regards time and wealth expenditure…..this roughly would explain the traditional theory on State organized murder/theft….but if the State is run by shareholders that don’t reside in that State and have no inherent interest in the health or well being of that State…..but have purely economic interests in that State and those interests have realized over time the best return on capital investment is in war and subsequent war time expenditure…then it would make sense when wars run decades with massive military spending because every boot…saddle and can of beans is profit to military industrial complex. As these wars are low intensity and not against peer adversaries then the lack of volume can be made up by massive unit prices. So in this model the wars are open ended for the maximum profit and hence where the logic and honesty of numbers comes in. This current conflict is missing the traditional formula on a couple important details. Russia is not a third world shithole where the modern gunboat diplomacy works on and they have the means to control the tempo and make any conflict decisive. There are over 1000 Abrams MBT unloaded in Greece and in theater….two or three division worth depending on compilation…..U.S missile boats are in the Arctic and Russia just shut down the Northern passage and have set up new Electronic complexes to jam DEW line or whatever it’s called now. There is no logic to this steady methodical creep to all out war. Maybe the parasites that have fed on the host are now ready to jump ship because it’s found a better host that at least knows it’s own gender
Actually they could not even beat the ‘third world shotholes’ forget controlling the ‘tempo’ (see Afghanistan), so San Francisco is doing just fine thank you.
My argument was the United States wins wars by dragging them out and spending massive amounts of money on armaments and associated expenditure …they are not trying to win in the traditional definition….and many years of low intensity conflicts against third world militaries with this MO has made them Ill suited to this impending confrontation with Russia….. San Francisco seems unfine to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfW6oaWP40U
Larry,
I had never heard of Andrei Martyanov before. I will follow him from now on.
My summary of what he said:
Russian weapons are designed to kill the enemy. American weapons are designed for jobs.
America has no experience at defending its homeland. Russia knows how to defend Mother Russia.
And because I’m about to email Paul Craig Roberts and want to kill two birds with one stone:
Dr. Roberts,
You are too negative. You need to be more positive and point out the facts, e.g., Elon Musk can prevail in defending free speech if Twitter can boycott corporations trying to shut down Twitter. Rather than talk about Western media propaganda, point people to Andrei Martyanov.
Which do you think will happen first?
1. America will lose on the battlefield.
2. America’s economy will collapse.
Ms. Simonyan,
I would want to have Andrei Martyanov as a guest at RT frequently. I would ask him lots of questions.
Jim Giles
Mississippi Rebel
https://youtu.be/8kdf_gCg_VM
“I believe that the Lancet is priced in the thousands of dollars (I have not been able to find a specific price but it is described as “cost effective.” If you know the price let me know.)”
I just Googled it a three or four different ways and found myself in a Rabbit Hole each time.
While in the Rabbit Hole, however, I did learn some new and interesting war related tidbits. For instance, from a Forbes article, I was informed that the Russian’s use of the Lancet drone is a sign of weakness and desperation. If they were a real martial nation, and not one that was broken both financially, and spiritually, they would unleash manly and expensive cruise missiles to get the job done, instead of using cowardly and cheaply made, knock-off drones.
Plus according to Forbes, there is no reason for we of the West to panic (!!!), because the videos of the Lancet strikes are probably staged, the drones depicted in the videos are blowing up wooden facsimilies of tanks and Buks and S-300s – and more than a few of those game changing M777 howitzers.
And two vans. I guess they were also made out of wood, those two Ukraine Army fighting vans I winessed getting kamikazed, and here I was thinking that the Russians have so many drones and so few armored targets left, they’re taking out the technicals with suicide drones because its faster – and cheaper? – than hunting them down the old fashioned way, with artillery.
20 to 50 thousand Euros for various iterations of the Iranian Shahed drone is about all I could find that was relevant, so I would assume the Russian MIC, if it is all that it is cracked up to be, and not a privatized neo-liberal money laundering sham of an MIC like my country’s, then I would assume that once they achieve standardization, even if isn’t that type of standardization that a sovereign nation like China has become the ALL-TIME* historical masters of, then for about 40 grand the Russians have a drone that can take out just about anything on the battlefield.
Including individual humans I would think, if the math is right.
Which it might well be in the very near future.
*For example, the Chinese have standardized the process of building world record breaking suspension bridges, just pop em out one after another like they’re playing with Lego, that’s how far ahead of everybody else they are, both past and present.
Now compare that price and capabilities to Holy Javelin. 🙂
The Holy Javelin is a game changer!
Too funny. I just Googled “How much does a Javelin missile cost” and the answer was at the top of page one. No Rabbit Hole there. I find that interesting.
178,000 dollars for the system, and 78,000 per missile. Not bad, even if it can’t do what it was originally intended to do, kill Russian tanks. At least not consistently.
I wonder what it is selling for on the European Black Market? Every criminal gang and “revolutionary group” in Europe is undoubtedly tying to get their mittens on one … or two, or twenty … because even though the Javelin is proving unworthy of modern battle, it can sure as shit wreak havoc in the civilian sphere.
Hell, you could wipe out an entire motorcade filled – to the brim! – with neo-liberal globalists for the price of a few kilos of heroin, to give one example of what the Holy Javelin could do should it find itself in the “wrong” hands.
What is missing in your analysis is the proportions to the sizes of the economy. USA’s GDP is 23 trillion and Russia’s is 1.7 trillion USD.
With that said, yes, you are correct – at the end of the day, the American system of weapons production is flawed because the state has no real control over it and because what is built into the system is the expectation for the weapons manufacturers to make profits (being publicly traded, it is even worse). The state can almost always produce things cheaper.
Finally, due to the 2-party corporate owned majority, the decision horizon in United States is roughly 2 years. What looks profitable now – is implemented and can and is abandoned when it starts looking unprofitable (which is why I think USA is gunning for the Syrian scenario in western Ukraine).
I can give you a few examples, not only military. For example, look at higher ed: in the race to make as much money as possible, the American universities rushed to get as many Chinese undergraduate and graduate students as possible. The state, being driven by special interests, allowed this and soon all the advanced research tech/STEM labs were full of Chinese born professors and graduate students. The private sector made money but many of these students “phone home” with the latest and greatest tech secrets. The private (and public) education sector made money hand over foot but the security and competitiveness of the country is compromised.
The same happened with the exportation of all the jobs to the far east etc. – corporate sector made a killing and the state is left with an impoverished population that cannot and doesn’t know how to make anything anymore.
Examples are endless…..
Is there a reason why Americans, let’s make that Westerners, crave violence, wars and domination like hyenas crave meat?
What reasons are there why Westerners will not learn to live like the rest of us – that is try to engage in peaceful mutually-beneficial commerce, respect for foreign cultures, and go back to settle problem through diplomatic means?
Why the mentality of: why pay for it when you can kill for it?
Why the constant need for bloodletting and relentless search for enemies?
Why do people in the West find this endless quest for wars a normal thing to do?
I search for answers to these questions in this article I wrote for The Saker: https://thesaker.is/in-search-of-enemies/
“What reasons are there why Westerners will not learn to live like the rest of us – that is try to engage in peaceful mutually-beneficial commerce, respect for foreign cultures, and go back to settle problem through diplomatic means?”
A statement utterly detached from human history, ancient, modern, or post-modern. “War is diplomacy by other means,” a statement agreed to by every civilization that has ever existed.
The king must keep to his mountain top, no matter the slippery slope created for just such a dope.
The West came from a tough neighborhood, feudal societies, religious and ethnic discrimination, huge poverty levels, rampant disease, low chance of land ownership. Leaving Europe meant those leaving had better opportunities those staying had more wealth and space. Europe is the only continent to put twice it’s own population outside it’s borders occupying 3/5 inhabitable continents. This creates repeated breaks from roots.
Asia and Africa have most of their indigenous population still living in their borders, better natural resources and more space. There is not the same sense of violent history nor the break with old cultures that grounds these nations.
That said Asia and Africa also have violent histories. Arabs were the biggest slave traders, enslaving Europeans until they fought back and they enslaved Africans. Pyramids were built by slaves. West Africans moving South wiped out indigenous African tribes in East and Southern Africa who were brown and small and the ancestors of bushmen who were treated terribly by black Africans.
Asia mogul rule in Indian sub continent, Japan war mongering.
Humans are violent bitches. Interspersed with pretending to be civilised.
Sorry but Pyramids were mostly built by contracted workers. We now have found, pay rolls, free time demands, causes of absences (mostly family) and so on.
The video at this link simulates a US carrier “surprise strike” on mainland China. A hypothetical scenario, because the modern reconaissance tech of both sides would exclude any possibility of “surprise strikes…”
Due to the processing limitations of commercially available Digital Combat Simulator software, and commercial CPUs, PCs, & etc., a larger scale simulation is not feasible. Notwithstanding the western bias of the “Grim Reapers” Channel, however, the vid objectively portrays how such an attack would be unviable, due to unacceptable losses of US aircraft.
Even in a scenario of a larger WWIII-type of offensive, with multiple carriers, and coordinated sorties from Pacific air bases, US aviation would not be able to outmatch the People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s numbers, tech, and ability to escalate such an aerial campaign in their own airspace.
I am not, otherwise, arguing that China could viably strike Okinawa, or Guam; nor am I discounting Western advantages in other fields like jet propulsion. In the Western Pacific theater, either side would hold an advantage in defending its own /allied airspace. The pragmatic realities involve the applicable distances, and the operational range of the aircraft in the service of both sides. In case of a Chinese intrusion into Japanese airspace, Okinawa can eventually count on some backup from theater US and Japanese airbases, with sorties aided by in-flight refueling. As long as friendly aircraft were operating from a safe distance, enemy aircraft and projectiles would be targeted by ground based air defenses. The defending side can operate closer to its own airfields, and reserve forces. Defending aircraft would neither need to fly with the burden of heavier ground attack projectiles; nor to escort less agile heavy bombers; nor to operate at the the extreme limit of their aircraft’s operational range.
To sum things up, at this stage, a conventional Western aerial assault on the Chinese mainland is unviable. Without the control of airspace necessary to support naval and ground forces, no landing of conventional US forces in China would be viable. So, the bottom line is that the US military has no viable conventional options, either for an aerial assault on China, or for a ground intervention, on the Chinese mainland.
Is China’s New TYPE 003 Aircraft Carrier Vunerable To US Surprise Strike? (WarGames 76) | DCS
https://youtu.be/oFyaAmay8Fc
Larry,
There have been several wargames that show once the US loses it’s satellites and communications between forces, they cease to operate as a military and the US rapidly loses (unless a general orders the game to show the US wins). I believe that China and Russia have planned for a loss of all satellites in case of war and the US has not.
On their borders, it is the US that has the long logistics lines.
Meanwhile, four or five Poseidon’s and a US without ports would collapse into anarchy in a few weeks (a gulf of Mexico Poseidon would eliminate US refining and the strategic reserve is emptying, no gas, no food to the cities, society collapses). Then the military would be needed internally.
The USA has the most expensive government on earth. Just look at the cost of health-care, education, infrastructure, social-welfare – and yes, military.
Being the world’s main reserve currency has its advantages, but it has its costs too – on US society, equality and government efficiency.
This was the worst article that Mr. Johnson has put out, at least of those I have read. It isn’t even worth starting on where all the holes are since the article is literally composed of them. But here are a couple, but first, Mr. Johnson quoting a guy who thought that it made sense to compare 1960’s Vietnam era US military with current Russian military is too biased to even laugh at. (And when Mr. Vietnam was called on that stupid comparison starts crying “bot, bot”. Oh well.) Back to the holes or at least a couple of them. US aircraft carriers, assuming either Russian or Chinese super duper weapons could get through the defense that quite frankly neither Mr. Johnson or that Vietnam guy can honestly say they know with certainty anything about, We only have a bunch of them so there is that and that doesn’t include the large number of smaller ones. Another strange point conveniently left out, why is China trying so hard to catch up to the US carrier capability since they are obviously (per author) dinosaurs just waiting to be sunk? Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to tell Mr. Johnson or that Vietnam guy just how the carriers are protected has spent too much time smokin some stuff. About those drones that can take out battle tanks, yeah, so? What is the point, everyone has them and guess whose technology is most copied, yup, the US’s. So they can take out battle tanks, goes both ways doesn’t it. Yeah but the Russian tank is a billion pounds lighter than the Abrams. Oh, OK. And it costs a lot less. Oh, OK again. Pointless points in a war. The legitimate question is not cost but the ability to replace. Neither the Russian or American economy is on a war footing so somewhat difficult to say just how fast certain systems could be replaced. Assuming the US would continue to operate under war conditions like it did under peace is not really very intelligent and severely underestimates the ingenuity of the American people The new paradigm in war fighting is taking much of the concept of armored warfare off the table being replaced with air and space power including drones, missiles, lasers and more traditional air superiority. So the ability to field and replace armor is much less important than it used to be. So those are a couple of points. I know Mr. Vietnam guy has some sort of bubbling hatred for the US that gives him his lifestyle, frankly there are things I have come to hate about it too given what the liberals have done to pervert everything. However that does not mean I close my mind to reality and just blast away. America almost single handedly rebuilt the world after WWII, what did Russia do besides enslaving a portion of it to a gray and listless existence? By necessity it was important for the US to take a leadership position to not only oppose a dangerous and murderous Soviet system but to guide the rebuilding toward a free system where the rights of people are respected. This was accomplished but sadly the liberals started taking power and now we see the mess they created. But that is another story. Nuff said I guess, I generally appreciate Mr. Johnson’s writing but he does go off the rails on occasion.
Do you get paid by word, letter or level of butthurt? Nice try though.
Hello. I do not disagree with a lot of what you said (Martyanov’s screeching is getting annoying and the hate is obvious), but…
1) RUSI (look it up) came out with a study about industrial/military capacity and Russia/China are way ahead, West outsourced most of its capabilities and plain shut them down.
2) Doctrine – USA went one way, Russia another. Assuming air superiority is great but what if someone has a system that can deny you that? As you can see even Ukraine denied Russia air superiority for the most part – you don’t see Russian bombers freely flying to Lviv.
3) American ingenuity – that may be a thing of the past, after decades of outsourcing, we simply do not have the skills/knowledge/motivation to do things. Also, you don’t just shift production from one doctrine to another.
4) Corruption – America is corrupt to the bone, it is the lobbyist driven corporate 2-party (equals 1-party) system. In such a system nothing gets done for the needs of the state/country and everything gets done for profit. If what’s profitable is good for the country – well, we have no problem. But what if that’s not the case?
5) It takes years to build an aircraft carrier and China may be betting that eventually USA will catch up on the hypersonics and when it does, China better have caught up on aircraft carriers by then….
That was quite the diatribe. Unfortunately, those gray and listless existences you speak of were built mostly by a Georgian, a few Ukrainians, a Latvian rifle squad and of course, the progenitors to the current batch of repackaged trotskyiist neocons running things, the Bolsheviks. But you just never mind about all that.
“…off the rails…”? Mate your incoherent rant is a slow motion, unparagraphed, train wreck,
Fair enough. I can see the issue with Martynov, he comes across as openly biased and generally anti-US.
Russian armaments factories are on a war footing. UVZ has been working triple shifts, seven days a week since March, and I’m quite sure that they’re not the only one.
IMO USA can not even fight a Vietnam again let alone vs a peer.
Way too much division – so much it’s a national security issue if a real threat ever comes.
The core of combat arms have always been Southern boys who will not fight for a woke military nor President Biden.
Blacks won’t fight for a “white supremacism” country
For the first time ever you have career military men saying don’t enlist.
Thats just the sociological issues. To say nothing about tons of cash wasted for garbage like F35
Can the United States fight a two-front war?
Better question to ask: can the United States win any war? The record since WWII would suggest not.
It’s basically a money game – the MIC racket. It’s not to win anything but turn a massive profit for the few.
The question is less can they than will they. The political will to win a war has not existed in DC since early December 1950.
The Christmas bombing ’72 really did scare the b’jeezuz out of the North Vietnamese, Adm Stockdale, an involuntary observer, wrote about the effect it had on the guards and “negotiators” of the Hilton. Then they realized that the depth of will to win didn’t really exist; that the purpose was merely to get them back to the table so Kissinger could negotiate the U.S. surrender, which they were happy to accept.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq were genuine victories in that they removed the governments of both nations and obliterated their organized militaries. Then, instead of taking their marbles and going home, with the admonishment, “don’t make us come back,” DC decided to engage in the academic vanity project of nation building. There is no idea so stupid that it won’t gain traction with academics, think-tanks, the media, and politicians. No one in either country desired, asked for, or could understand Jeffersonian Democracy, but DC was determined to ram it down their throats and, in Afghanistan at least, they were entirely successful. By August 2021 they had replicated DC on the Potomac in as DC on the Kabul, whose officials were every bit as venal, corrupt, feckless, and incompetent as the original.
If has become an article of faith in the U.S officer corp. that there will never be another existential war.
Material capacity means little in war if political will is lacking.
If actual WWIII breaks out not one will be more surprised, or more epistemologically unprepared to fight it, than the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You raise valid points. Indeed, the will to win plays a large part in the ability to win.
With respect to Afghanistan and Iraq, merely toppling the government, seizing the capital, and living in a small “Green zone” is not a good definition of winning a war. As for obliterating the organised military, I am not sure one can find much difference between the pre- and post-war Afghan military.
Basically a very, very large number of civilians were killed in both, and this ‘shock ‘n awe’ orgy of mindless carnage is America’s legacy and enduring shame.
If war is politics by other means, what exactly does winning a war mean to America? There was no political objective in Afghanistan and Iraq, just ideology (axis of evil / WoT) and profiteering
“The United States is kidding itself if it thinks it can fight China and Russia. ”
The drug supplier is also a user and hence you are overly restricting areas in/of which “The United States of America” is kidding itself, as a function of facility/framing from which you apparently don’t over-extend.
Your minimisation of over-extension is a positive comparative in relation to many if not most of your former colleagues, and purported to be colleagues with whom you have likely interacted, thereby limiting your probabilities of attaining beneficial co-operative endeavour sufficient to address such lacunae.
However as is often the case with many endeavours of “The United States of America”, you reference some of the interpreted symptoms of the systemic problems which is an understandable caution in a public domain, although in context this may be a function of facility as is often the case with many if not most of your former colleagues, but you do not outline the systemic problems which require addressing to minimise vectors of significant challenge available to opponents.
By such framing some may be of the view that you are therefore engaging in limited comparatives of “the apples and oranges of magic bulletness” which often mutates into “the apples and oranges of outrageous fortune”, a drug which is well prescribed and ingested by many in “The United States of America”, not the lateral interactive conditions available in context and their likely trajectories required to design and implement flexible/viable strategies including maximising the availabilities of their spectra of flexibilities – the game of pool refers limitedly.
Another thing is US would lose a nuclear war too. Russia has fallout shelters for 60 million. We have none but for our elites and home preppers . Russia has sick ABM we have none and crappy Yemen drones can evade Patriots. Russia would not be immune to nuclear winter if true, then like they say “everyone loses” – but at least half of Russia would survive a total launch while USA would be wrecked
When I was in Moscow in the ’90’s and Americans walked on water, I noticed an interesting pack of Soviet era cigarettes at a local kiosk call ‘Udarniy Otvet’ (Retaliatory Strike). It was then, I realized Russians are nothing to be fooled with.
Then came ’99 and NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia, (over a secessionist KLA, go figure) accompanied with the chicanery of UN Res. 1244 and their mood began to change. There was a slow, methodical realization beginning then that NATO expansion was up to no good. Then came 2008, the Georgian 5-day war, Bush’s prognostications on Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, followed by 2014 and that final Russian ‘eureka’ moment that notwithstanding the flowery speeches of the day, NATO, not quite having secured the Georgian coast, had trucked on undeterred setting its sights on Crimea, with the transparent objective to turn the Black Sea not into a 50% NATO lake, which it had already secured, but a 100% done deal. Dream up what you will but as far as the Russians were concerned, that was the last straw on the camel’s back.
Russians are not fools. Like they say, they’re slow to saddle but quick to gallop.
In short, we took the ‘once-willing ally’ of a bird in the hand and traded it for two sickly and unpredictable birds in the bush and a never ending quagmire. Over what, I still don’t know to this day.
some of the rubbish Russia uses,
>The 2S4 Tyulpan (often spelled Tulpan, Russian: 2C4 «Tюльпaн»; English: tulip) is a Soviet 240 mm self-propelled heavy mortar. “2S4” is its GRAU designation. The Tyulpan is the largest mortar system in use today.[2]
https://files.catbox.moe/x0pfuz.mp4
this is one of my favorite kino clips, the sound is amazing, you can right click and save the file if you want.
this is an amazing still;
https://imgur.com/a/BEv1ekz
apparently the round can have a small jet engine inside used for correction, as a lazer guided mine.
I don’t know where to start with comments since I could write for hours. Conducting analysis to help provide better decision-making wrt which weapons and weapons systems to develop and purchase has been my profession for 34 years. Decades ago, it generally turned out that the marginal benefit of higher end systems was worth the marginal cost versus the typical adversaries. Two things occurred since then:
1. Adversaries changed and their capabilities exponentially grew.
2. The arrogance and delusion of fedgov also exponentially grew, to the point that (stupid) decisions were already made regardless of analytical outcomes.
Someone here mentioned poker… we’re playing high stakes with not even holding a pair… with fedgov’s biggest threat being nukes or more bio-weapons. Lack of moral compass is astounding.
Larry is spot on, as usual.
All wars are wars of attrition… attrition can mean many things, but today, it’s attrition in hardware. Simple Lancaster equations provide sufficient analytical basis to show that all sides need more/cheaper stuff, particularly in direct fire engagements.
There’s a lot I can’t say here, but USN CVBGs around China won’t go anywhere near ground based anti-ship missile ranges. So what good do they do??!!
The only conclusion I can reach is that the morons in charge are trying to destroy us on purpose. They, in foreign policy, drove a wedge in the wrong spot, aligning Russia and China (maybe only temporary) along with the rest of BRICS+. Sure, we’re so superior, we can fight a two front war! Yeah right!
How many aircraft has the US lost in this war with Russia ? Tanks, soldiers, aircraft carriers ?
This may be the most successful war the US has ever led.
40bn$ plus bunch of weapons, handful of soldiers, sprinkling of risk of nuclear war and total global chaos. All going well.
40bn$ is nothing. The Fed conjures that up in a few seconds. Meanwhile Russia is losing actual people and equipment on the ground and is spending probably 3 times as much, not to mention all the economic fallout from war, sanctions, loss of business and an exodus of highly educated people.
If you are a US neocon, 40 billion dollars is a bargain. Besides, Russia will end up paying for all the weaponry being used against it since the West will certainly make up laws that justify seizing 300+ billion $ of frozen Russian bank reserve.
Are these aircraft, tanks, and carrier groups able to effectively face a peer-power in battle? That is the million dollar question. Meanwhile the US continues to disintegrate internally while China, Russia and other BRIC+ countries grow stronger without the shackles of the American “Rules-based order”.
Thus far Russia has pulverized the best prepared and equipped NATO proxy army in a limited SMO using a fraction of its military resources.
What peer power are you talking about ? The US military currently has no equal.
China’s military might become a peer power in 15-20 years but it’s not there yet.
As for Russia pulverizing Ukrainians, I’m afraid that’s just wishful thinking on your part.
The situation on the ground after 8 months of fighting does not support your claims.
The Russian army is a mere shadow of the Soviet one.
“Is there a reason why Americans, let’s make that Westerners, crave violence, wars and domination like hyenas crave meat?”
The west does not have a monopoly on empire and war. Sure, Alexander the Great led the way for western culture, but Xerxes and Genghis Khan were not far behind. History is replete with advanced civilizations, empires, forged with the sword. Archeologists discovered at least one culture, South America, which exhibited no martial elements. It did not last long, it was conquered. Groups are attacked and conquered when they are weak. Complex, advanced culture is built on the back of others. It’s a human thing, not owned by the west.
WEF is the latest version of one world rule to eliminate all war. They will bring all to heel, not with recruitment and persuasion, not with commerce, but with martial conquest.
Don’t blame the west. It’s also ‘mother nature’. The most vicious animal is a mother defending her young. I accept this because during my lifetime, this is how it will be. What is the way out? I can’t fix it but no well balanced individual in the west should take the rap for our leaders “gone man”.
There are things worth fighting for, things worth defending.
A column of Russian BTRs racing – at high speeds! – through Crimea on their way to the front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdhKl3NH7VI
Probably can’t wait to get into some street fighting with the 101st in Odessa, that’s why they’re risking getting a ticket.
The BTR proved its worth – block by block – against Azov in Mariupol, that’s for sure, but can it take on the legendary American paratroopers armed with nothing more than a 30 millimeter cannon?
Well, US military doctrine states that it must be ready at all times to fight and win a two front war against its nearest peers, and since such a head on collision of forces in Odessa would only constitute the start of a trifling easy one front war, perhaps we are going to find out.
Good to know that we all have something in common – idiot drivers and road rage.
Two-front war? The US is too busy fighting itself to ever fight another major adversary. E.g. The President just basically claimed that voting for the other party is voting against democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjDO1zIgQhQ
Game over, USA empire, it was a fun ride…
The US can fight and does fight on multiple fronts, Syria, Somalia, Iraq etc. It’s a busy bunny. The question is can it beat one let alone two peers. It can’t beat one outcome huge damage or mutual destruction.
My guess is US will push peers as far as it can short of direct conflict and return to it’s forte of proxy wars and color revolution plus psyops and economic warfare.
I don’t believe it is seriously open to fighting China. It’s posturing to warn allies and others that China may be treated like Russia so don’t get too close and start finding alternatives.
Maybe the US gov has a secret weapon that gives them such confidence. Maybe they are just nuts.
the Kennedys like all Democrats since Wilson were “democratic” liberalist imperialists-“humanitarian interventionists” which is to say at core close ideological cousins to the neocons(actually Republicans are too!)…while documents seem to suggest Kennedy was intent on pulling out of ‘Nam before his murd er, he was a staunch anti-communist zealot who greenlit countless pointless interventions and atrocities–Bay of Bigs to name one–all to secure American capitalist supremacy and deny independence to sovereign nations. The idea that another 5 years of Kennedy in office would have a period of flower power enligntenment rather than exactly what Biden and every other democrat has wage is unfounded. Was Kennedy more capable than Biden. Sure. But if Obama had met Kennedy’s fate in say 2011 before Libya or Timber Sycamore, everyone would be singing his praises. A lot can change in 5 years and a deluded imperialist stays an imperialist.
Also, must add Biden himself has been typically “restrained.” Hes basically a Rockefeller republican from the ZB scbool of foreign policy. Whats is new now is his dementia. He can be run over by the Strasserites in his admin and things can escalate quickly.
The US is proving that not one can fight let alone two. They fight well in corporate media. They’ve been beating Russia for 8 months. But the only successful offensive operation was in Kharkov a week after Russian forces had left Kharkov. Congratulations to the satellites.
Or 3? In the event of a direct conflict with China, it is likely North Korea will invade the South. Splitting the commitment of US Pacific forces would benefit both China and North Korea and be the North’s best opportunity to prevail. From China’s perspective, loss of South Korea would be a massive long-term blow to the US.
Belgorod is 1600 ft radioactive tsunami. Theres no missiles to “get through” thats how the carrier group destruction has been formulated. A whole group of ships. So your first point seems to miss that basic fact
Found on the web :
In June 2019, the Pentagon said it had reached an “informal” agreement with Lockheed-Martin for a multi-year order of F-35 Lightning II planes – from one of the costliest programs in the history of the United States. aviation – for 34 billion dollars. It therefore remained to transform the test, which was done on October 29, 2019.
Thus, the agreement, which has therefore just been finalized, concerns the purchase of 478 aircraft divided into three lots, with a reduction in the overall acquisition cost of 12.7%, as a result.
In detail, Lockheed-Martin will have to deliver to the American air force as well as to the program partners 149 aircraft in 2020 [lot n°12], 160 in 2021 [lot n°13] and 169 in 2022 [lot n°14 ].
The reduction in the purchase price of these devices will be gradual. Thus, an F-35A of batch n°12 will cost 82.4 million dollars, against 89.2 million currently. This cost will then increase to 79.17 million the following year and then to 77.9 million in 2022.
However, the most significant reductions will concern the F-35B [STOVL, short takeoff/vertical landing, editor’s note] and the F-35C [naval version].
Between 2020 and 2022, the price of an F-35B will increase from $108 million to $101.3 million. Which is rather good news for the US Marine Corps as well as for the United Kingdom and Italy, which have ordered this type of device.
The most significant drop will concern the F-35C since its price will fall below the 95 million dollar mark in 2022, against 103.1 million in 2020.
Obviously, such reductions, made possible by a reduction in the cost of production, can only rejoice the customers of the F-35. “This puts the cost per unit below our previous forecasts,” said Frank Bakke-Jensen, Norwegian Defense Minister. As a reminder, Oslo must have 52 F-35As and its air force has already received 22 copies.
In addition, Lockheed-Martin, for which the F-35 program represents a good quarter of its annual turnover, will be able to make more competitive proposals for future calls for tenders, such as in Finland, for example. “About 10 countries are planning to acquire F-35s”, did not fail to underline General Eric Fick, head of the “Joint Strike Fighter” program at the Pentagon.
Still, the operating cost remains high, which is something to think about. Indeed, an hour of flight with an F-35 costs 44,000 dollars. Or 352 million for a potential estimated at 8,000 hours. You have to spend half as much to fly an F-16 or an F/A-18 Super Hornet. Admittedly, Lockheed-Martin has expressed its desire to lower this hourly cost to $25,000 by 2025. Except that the Pentagon believes that this objective is not achievable.
Perhaps the aircraft carriers are just for projecting an image of force, not real force. Might intimidate smaller adversaries, but they are less than worthless against Russia and China. I don’t think the US is making them anymore, only running the existing ones.
What about the nuclear powered submarine fleet? The Ohio class, which is said to be in the mediterranean now and likely headed to the Black Sea, has hundreds of missiles, including nuclear armed missiles. Does Russia have defences against such weapons? Serious question, I genuinely would like to know.
US gov. should remember that NOT every war is a choice.
If tomorrow , the Juche chief decide Korea will be better united : what will the US do ? If Hezbolah finaly retaliate to the violations of multiples UN resolutions , what will the US do ?
The “if” list is virtually endless … as the consequences.
War in itself is the choice of someone, but the US are acting as if that someone couldn’t be someone else.
“US gov. should remember that NOT every war is a choice.”
Difficult given socialisation from inception as a function of the interaction of “exceptionalism” and its dialectical derivative “We the people hold these truths to be self-evident”.
“War in itself is the choice of someone, but the US are acting as if that someone couldn’t be someone else.”
Not all as outlined in MirrorGazers says
6 November 2022 at 12:21 above
Not the first iteration of this lateral process in context.
The norm to date has been interactions of attempts at bridging doubt by belief to minimise discomfort, with “We the people hold these truths to be self-evident (exceptionalism derivative)”,given war is not restricted to things that go bang, and the Mr. Zhirinovsky/Mr. Yeltsin routines were facilitated with the complicity of the opponents, thereby requiring the bridging of doubt by belief in “We won the Cold War”.
The Cold War was never cold and never ended as illustrated by a white helmet in Istanbul who thought he could fly, but mutated into various forms through various trajectories and velocities.
Consequently some remain in lateral processes of transcendence of the Cold War, whilst some others believe that all remain within the Cold War and consequently the Cold War never finished, whilst simultaneously attempting to evangelise and partly rely upon, “We won the Cold War”.