New weapons and the new tactics which they make possible: three examples

[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]

There are probably hundreds of books out there about the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs”, some of them pretty good, most of them very bad, and a few very good ones (especially this one). For a rather dull and mainstream discussion, you can check the Wikipedia article on the RMA. Today I don’t really want to talk this or similar buzzwords (like “hybrid warfare” for example). Frankly, in my experience, these buzzwords serve two purposes:

to sell (books, articles, interviews, etc.)
to hide a person’s lack of understanding of tactics, operational art and strategy.

This being said, there *are* new things happening in the realm of warfare, new technologies are being developed, tested and deployed, some extremely successfully.

In his now famous speech, Putin revealed some of these new weapons systems, although he did not say much about how they would be engaged (which is quite logical, since he was making a political speech, not a military-technical report). For those would be interested in this topic, you can check here, here, here, here, here and here.

The recent Houthi drone and missile strike on the Saudi oil installations has shown to the world something which the Russians have known for several years: that even rather primitive drones can be a real threat. Sophisticated drones are a major threat to every military out there, though Russia has developed truly effective (including cost-effective, which is absolutely crucial, more about that later) anti-drone capabilities.

First, lets look at the very low-cost end of the spectrum: drones

Let’s begin with the primitive drones. These are devices which, according to one Russian military expert, roughly need a 486 CPU, about 1MB of RAM, 1GB of harddisk space and some (now extremely cheap) sensors to capture the signals from the US GPS, the Russian GLONASS or both (called “GNSS”). In fact, the “good terrorists” in Syria, financed, assisted and trained by the “Axis of Kindness” (USA/KSA/Israel) have been attacking the Russian base in Khmeimim with swarms of such drones for years. According to the commander of the air defenses of Khmeimin, over 120(!) drones were shot down or disabled by Russian air defenses in just the last two years. Obviously, the Russians know something that some “Axis of Kindness” does not.

The biggest problem: missile systems should not be used against drones

Some self-described “specialists” have wondered why Patriot missiles did not shoot down the Houthi drones. This is asking the wrong question because missiles are completely ineffective in engaging attacking drone swarms. And, for once, this is not about the poor performance of Patriot SAMs. Even Russian S-400s are the wrong systems to use on individual drones or drone swarms. Why? Because of the following characteristics of drones:

they are typically small, with a very special low profile, extremely light and made up of materials which minimally reflect radar signals;
they are very slow, which does not make it easier to shoot them down, but much harder, especially since most radars are designed to track and engage very fast targets (aircraft, ballistic missiles, etc.);
they can fly *extremely* low, which allows them to hide; even lower than cruise missiles flying NOE;
they are extremely cheap, thus wasting multi-million dollar missiles on drones costing maybe 10-20 dollars (or even say, 30,000 dollars for the very high end) makes no sense whatsoever;
they can come in swarms with huge numbers; much larger than the number of missiles a battery can fire.

From the above, it is obvious how drones should be engaged: either with AA cannons or by EW systems.

[Sidebar: In theory, they could also be destroyed by lasers, but these would require a lot of power, thus engaging cheapo drones with them is possible, but not optimal]

It just so happens that the Russians have both, hence their success in Khmeimim.

One ideal anti-drone weapon would be the formidable Pantsir which combines multi-channel detection and tracking (optoelectronics, radar, IR, visual, third-party datalinks, etc.) and a powerful cannon. And, even better, the Pantsir also has powerful medium range missiles which can engage targets supporting the drone attack.

The other no less formidable anti-drone system would be the various Russian EW systems deployed in Syria.

Why are they so effective?

Let’s look at the major weaknesses of drones

First, drones are either remotely controlled, or have onboard navigation systems. Obviously, just like any signal, the remote signal can be jammed and since jammers are typically closer to the intended target than the remote control station, it is easier for it to produce a much stronger signal since the strength of a signal diminishes according to the so-called “inverse square law“. Thus in terms of raw emission power, even a powerful transmitted far away is likely to lose to a smaller, weaker, signal if that one is closer to the drone (i.e. near the intended target along the likely axis of attack). Oh sure, in theory one could use all sorts of fancy techniques to try to avoid that (for example frequency-hopping, etc.) but these very quickly dramatically raise the weight and cost of the drone. You also need to consider that the stronger the signal from the drone, the bigger and heavier the onboard power cells need to be, and the heavier the drone is.

Second, some drones rely on either satellite signals (GPS/GLONASS) or inertial guidance. Problem #1: satellite signals can be spoofed. Problem #2 inertial guidance is either not that accurate or, again, heavier and more costly.

Some very expensive and advanced cruise missiles use TERCOM, terrain contour matching, but that is too expensive for light and cheap drones (such advanced cruise missiles and their launchers is what the S-3/400s were designed to engage, and that at least makes sense financially). There are even more fancy and extremely expensive cruise missile guidance technologies out there, but these are simply not applicable to weapons like drones with their biggest advantage being simple technology and low costs.

The truth is that even a non-tech guy like me could build a drone ordering all the parts from online stores such as Amazon, AliBaba, Banggood and tons of others and build pretty effective drones to, say, drop a hand grenade or some other explosive on an enemy position. Somebody with an engineering background could easily build the kind of drones the “good terrorists” have used against the Russians in Syria. A country, even a poor one and devastated by a genocidal war, like Yemen, could very easily build the kind of drones used by the Houthis, especially with Iranian and Hezbollah help (the latter two have already successfully taken remote control of US and Israeli drones respectively).

Finally, I can promise you that right now, in countries like the DPRK, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, etc, there are teams of engineers working on the development of very low cost drones just like there are teams of military analysts developing new tactics of engagement.

This is, I submit, is the first not-so-noticed (yet) kinda-revolution in military affairs.

Second, lets look at the very high end: 5th+ generation aircraft and 5-6th generation UAVs

While some in India have declared (for political reasons and to please the USA) that the Su-57 was not “really” a 5th generation aircraft (on the pretext that the first ones were deployed with 4th gen engines and because the Su-57 did not have the same kind of all-aspect RCS which the F-22 has), in Russia and China the debate is now whether the Su-57 is really only a 5th generation aircraft or really a 5th+ or even 6th generation one. Why?

For one thing, rumors coming out of the Sukhoi KB and the Russian military is that the pilot in the Su-57 is really an “option”, meaning that the Su-57 was designed from the start to operate without any pilot at all. My personal belief is that the Su-57 has an extremely modular design which currently does require a human pilot and that the first batch of S-57s will probably not fly all alone, but that the capability to remove the human pilot to be replaced by a number of advanced systems has been built-in, and that the Russians will deploy pilot-less Su-57’s in the future.

[Sidebar: this 3rd, 4th, 5th and now even 6th generation business is a little too fuzzy for my taste, so I rather avoid these categories and I don’t see a point in dwelling on them. What is important is what weapons systems can do, not how we define them, especially for a non-technical article like this one]

In the meantime, the Russians have for the first time shown this:

What you are seeing here is the following:

A Su-57 flies together with the new long range Russian strike drone: the Heavy Strike UAV S-70 Hunter and here is what the Russian MoD has recently revealed about this drone:

Range: 6,000km (3,700 miles)
Ceiling: 18,000m (60,000 feet)
Max speed: 1,400km/h (1,000mph)
Max load: 6,000kg (12,000lbs)

Furthermore, Russian experts are now saying that this UAV can fly alone, or in a swarm, or in a joint flight with a manned Su-57. I also believe that in the future, one Su-57 will probably control several such heavy strike drones.

[Sidebar: flag-waving patriots will immediately declare that the S-70 is a copy of the B-2. In appearance that is quite true. But consider this: the max speed of the B-2 is, according to Wikipedia, 900km/h (560 mph). Compare that with the 1,400km/h (1,000mph) and realize that a flying wing design and a supersonic flying wing design at completely different platforms (the supersonic stresses require a completely different structural design)]

What can a Su-57 do when flying together with the S-70?

Well, for one thing since the S-70 has a lower RCS than the Su-57 (this according to Russian sources) the Su-57 uses the S-70 as a long range hostile air defense penetrator tasked with collecting signals intelligence and relaying those back to the Su-57. But that is not all. The Su-57 can also use the S-70 to attack ground targets (including SEAD) and even execute air-to-air attacks. Here the formidable speed and huge 6 tons max load of the S-70 offer truly formidable capabilities, including the deployment of heavy Russian air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-ship capabilities.

[Sidebar: some Russian analysts have speculated that in order to operate with the S-70 the Su-57 has to be modified into a two-seater with a WSO operating the S-70 from the back seat. Well, nobody knows yet, this is all top secret right now, but I think that this idea clashes with the Sukhoi philosophy of maximally reduce the workload of the pilot. True, the formidable MiG-31 has a WSO, even the new MiG-31BM, but the design philosophy at the MiG bureau is often very different from what the folks at Sukhoi develop and, besides, 4 decades stand between the MiG-31 and the Su-57. My personal guess is that the operations of the S-70 will be mostly full automated and even distributed along the network connecting all integrated air and ground based air defense systems. If an an engineer reads these lines, I would appreciate any comments or corrections! After all, this is just my best guess]

The usual gang of trolls will probably object that the Russian computer/chip industry is so far behind the supposedly much superior western solid-state electronics that this is all nonsense; there was a human sitting inside the S-70; this thing don’t fly; the Su-57 is a 4th gen aircraft much inferior to the amazingly superb F-22/F-35; and all the rest of it. Especially for them, I want to remind everybody that Russia was the first country to deploy airborne phased array radars on her MiG-31s which, to boot, were capable of exchanging targeting data by encrypted datalinks with FOUR (!) other aircraft maintaining EM silence (while using their optoelectronics and relaying that data back). Furthermore, these MiG-31s could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground-based (SAMs) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!

The truth is that the Soviet armed forces deployed plenty of network-centric systems long before the West, especially in the Soviet Air Force and Navy (while the Soviet Ground-Forces pioneered the use of so-called RSC “reconnaissance-strike complexes” which were the nightmare of NATO during the Cold War). Nowadays, all we need to do is parse the NATO whining about Russian Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities to see that the Russians are still pioneering advanced military-technical capabilities which the West can only dream of.

Now let’s revisit some of the recent criticisms of the Su-57

So what about the fact that the Su-57 does not have all-around very low RCS? What if the Su-57 was never intended to spearhead the penetration of advanced and integrated air defense systems? What if from day 1 the Sukhoi designers were warned by their colleagues at Almaz-Antey, Novator, KRET or even the good folks at the OSNAZ (SIGINT) and the 6th Directorate of the GRU that “stealth” is vastly over-rated? What if it was clear to the Russians from day 1 that a low frontal-RCS did not compromise other capabilities as much as a quasi-total reliance on all-aspect low-RCS never to be detected in the first place?

The crucial thing to keep in mind is that new technological capabilities also generate new tactics. By the way, western analysts understand that, hence the new network-centric capabilities of the F-35. This is especially true since the F-35 will be a pathetic dogfighter whereas the Su-57 might well be the most capable one out there: did you know that the Su-57 has several radars besides the main one, that they cover different bands and that they give the Su-57 a 360 degree vision of the battlefield, even without using the signals from the S-70, AWACS or ground based SAM radars?). And in terms of maneuverability, I will just show this and rest my case:

Lastly, the case of the invisible missile container :-)

Remember the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commercial container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video which explains this:

Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4,000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming. In fact, the Russians could deploy such a system on any civilian merchant ship, sailing under any imaginable flag, and station it not only anywhere off the US coastline, but even in a US port since most containers are never examined anyways (and when they are, it is typically for drugs or contraband). Once we realize this, all the stupid scaremongering about Russian subs off the coast of Florida become plain silly, don’t they?

Now let’s look at some very interesting recent footage from the recent maneuvers in Russia:

Here is what the person who posted that (Max Fisher, here is his YT channel) video wrote about this coastal defense system, explaining it very well:

For the first time, during the tactical exercises of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet, carrying combat duty on the island of Kotelny, the coastal missile system “Bastion” was used The BRK was successful in firing a supersonic Onyx anti-ship cruise missile at a sea target located over 60 kilometers in the Laptev Sea, which confirmed its readiness to effectively carry out combat duty in the Arctic and perform tasks to protect the island zone and the Russian coast. Onyx is a universal anti-ship cruise missile. It is designed to combat surface naval groups and single ships in the face of strong fire and electronic countermeasures. On the basis of the rocket, there are two seemingly absolutely identical export options: the Russian Yakhont and the Indian BrahMos, but with significantly reduced combat characteristics. These vehicles are capable of starting from under water: they have a flight speed of 750 meters per second and carry the crushing high-explosive warhead with a weight of half a ton. The range of their flight is more than 600 kilometers. Previously, Rubezh BRK was used as the main coastal missile system of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet. At the end of August, he successfully hit two targets “Termit” missiles installed in the Laptev Sea at a distance of more than 50 kilometers from the coast.

Now let me ask you this: how hard would you think it would be for Russia to develop a container size version coastal defense system using the technologies used in the Bastion/Yakhont/BrahMos missile systems? Since the AngloZionists have now reneged on The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Russians have *already* developed a land-based version of their Kalibr missile which is ready to deploy as soon as the US deploys any such missile in Europe.

The fact is that Russia has perfected an entire family of ballistic and cruise missiles which can be completely hidden from detection and which can be deployed literally anywhere on the planet. Even with nuclear warheads.

This capability completely changes all the previous US deterrence/containment strategies (which are still halfway stuck in the Cold War and halfway stuck with low-intensity/counter-insurgency operations like what they have been doing (with no success whatsoever!) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and in Latin America and Africa).

In the light of the above, what do you make of the steady flow of NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea to “deter” Russia? If you find it completely suicidal, I agree. In fact, all these ships are doing is allowing the Russians to train their crews on the “real thing”. But should it ever come to a shooting war, the life span of any and every NATO ship in the Black Sea would be measured in minutes. Literally!

Now lets think of Iran. As I said many, many times, Russia will not enter a full-scale war against the combined powers of the “Axis of Kindness” on behalf of Iran (or any other country on the planet). But Russia very much might get seriously fed up with the “Axis of Kindness” and sell Iran any missile the Iranians would be willing to acquire. In the past I have often written that the real sign that Iran is about to be attacked would not be the presence of USN ships in the Strait of Hormuz or along the Iranian coast, but the opposite: a flushing out of all ships from the Strait itself and a careful repositioning of the bulk of the USN ships inside sea and land based US air defenses “umbrella” available at that moment. I can only imagine the nightmare for CENTCOM if Iran begins to acquire even a small number of Bastions or Kalibers or Yakhont or BrahMos missiles :-)

Conclusion: the “Axis of Kindness” countries are in big, big trouble!

The US and Israel have tremendous technological capabilities, and in normal times US specialists could gradually deploy systems capable of countering the kind of capabilities (not only necessarily Russian ones) we now see deployed in various areas of operations. And there sure is enough money, considering that the US alone spends more on the “promotion of kindness” than the rest of the planet combined! So what is the problem?

Simple, the US Congress, which might well be the most corrupt parliament on the planet, is in the business of:

Hysterically flag-waving and declaring any naysayers “un-American”
Making billions for the US ruling nomenklatura

Thus, to admit that the “shining city on the hill” and its “best armed forces in history” are rapidly falling behind foes which the US propaganda has described as “primitive” and “inferior” for decades is quite literally *unthinkable* for US politicians. After all, the US public might wonder why all these multi-billion dollar toys the US MIC has been producing in the last decades have not yielded a single success, never-mind a meaningful victory! Trump in his campaign tried to make that point. He was instantly attacked by the Dems for not supporting the “best military in history” and he quickly changed his tune. Now even the weapons the US does not even have yet are better than those already being tested and, possibly, deployed by Russia.

This “feel good” approach to military issues is very nice, warm and fuzzy. But it sure does not make it possible to even identify present, or even less so, future dangers.

Then, of course, there is the issue of money. The US, in its short history, has deployed some absolutely world class weapons systems in technologies. My personal favorites: the Willys MBm, also known as a Jeep, and the superb F-16. But there are many, many more. The problem with these, at least from the point of view of the US nomenklatura, is that they were designed for warfare, for the many and very different real-world battlefields out there. They were never designed to enrich the already fantastically rich!

Hence the country which produced the Jeep now mostly produces massive hulks of metal which drive like crap, which constantly break, but which give the narcissistic and baseball cum sunglasses hat wearing left-lane male drivers a delightful feeling of macho superiority. And, of course, the country which created and deployed the formidable, yet economic, F-16 in the thousands (well over 4000 I think) now produces the F-35 (good thing that the US colonies like Poland or Japan are willing to buy them to please their beloved Uncle Shmuel).

From the point of view of the US nomenklatura, the F-35 is a stunning, amazing, success, not a high-tech flying brick! The costs of this system are not the proof of the incompetence of US engineers, or the cluelessness of US military analysts. Rather, these costs are proof of the combined effects of infinite greed and self-worship of the US ruling class.

Sadly, one of the best ways to learn the important lessons, is by means of a painful or catastrophic defeat. The Russia of today would not have been possible without the horrors of the “democratic rule” of Eltsin in the 1990s. Think of it: during the first Chechen war, the Russians had a hard time even finding one complete combat capable regiment and they had to use “combined battalions” (сводный батальон) instead. This will probably also happen to the USA.

The Saker

terebinth on October 02, 2019 · at 3:34 pm EST/EDT

> Sidebar: some Russian analysts have speculated that in order to operate with the S-70 the Su-57 has to be modified into a two-seater with a WSO operating the S-70 from the back seat […] If an an engineer reads these lines, I would appreciate any comments or corrections! After all, this is just my best guess

It’s all about the cognitive workload.

Attack helicopters almost universally are two-seaters, because the business of keeping a low flying helo out of the trees and power-lines doesn’t leave much energy for acquiring targets, dealing with threats, and there are a lot more relevant threats to a low-flying helo than an air-superiority fighter operating at 10km altitude and from 100km behind the battlefront (AA tactics typified by dashes forward and then retreating to safety), where there isn’t much to run into, and the number of enemy platforms that can engage is a much smaller number than those right at the battlefront, down in the weeds, so to speak.

Every fighter designer would like to put not just two operators into their fighters, but 3, 4, 5, 6,… Really the more the merrier, because of cognitive workload; modern high-intensity conflict is just so busy you want to slow time down in order to OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) in a coherent way, but you can’t. If those designers could figure out a way to put 6 operators into every Su-35, it would make for a much more performant platform. Of course the tradeoff is payload, fuel, structure, etc. They try to balance, and I imagine that the internal debates are fierce over exactly where the optimum is.

Personally, in recent years, I was fascinated by the desicion to make the MiG-35 a two-seater. Historically, the frontal aviation (Lo side of the HiLo mix in USAF buzz-eze) was single-seater, so this is a departure, even for MiG. (Some press had said that the version on display was a D-variant trainer, but I’ve never seen the main marketing prototype of a combat aircraft be its trainer version. The MiG-29 may have a two-seater trainer version, but all the airshow/arms-bazaar events were the main single-seater version.) I think they’ve concluded that at the low-altitude frontal aviation mission, in a high-intensity conflict, the workload will be so severe that one operator could not bring the MiG-35 to its full potential, not even close. So many sensors to babysit and interpret, so many targets, so many threats, twiddling the knobs on the EW systems alone (it’s a kind of hand-slapping game played the EM spectrum) could be a demanding job. This is at low altitude, in the weeds, at the front. The air-superiority game is played way up, at higher speeds, and there is less workload, for many reasons, including seemingly prosaic ones like there is no mountain to plow into up there.

In the 1980s, the Soviet designers of the MiG-29 adhered to a doctrine relying on AWACS for situational-awareness, an inherently weak network design with single points of failure. The modern doctrine (guessing) accounts for the reality of unavoidable and devastating deep interdiction raids on sensors, bases, infrastructure: the MiG-35 is designed to operate from concealed and dispersed dispositions close to the front, to use its formidable sensor package in order to *reconstitute*, as a node in a network, the aggregate situational awareness of the entire army group. In that sense, the MiG-35 has the many of the responsibilities of an AWACS platform, and this means workload, analysis, interpretation, EW fiddling, etc. And of course it carries weapons and will be responsible –in addition– for waxing critical stuff up there in the weeds. Insane Workload.

Su-57s would be playing a much more rareified game, as mentioned, fewer relevant targets/threats. Still, I can see the issue being hotly debated by the pros actually responsible for these things. Adding a drone swarm management to the mix definitely gives the two-seater proponents a strong case; it’s just mildly disturbing the the futurist-inspired vision we’ve been fed about humans being replaced by intelligent machines; for some of these designers, putting two operators instead of one would be tantamount to a regressive disease, a failure, over and above any pains they might feel about sacrificing fuel capacity etc. That would be the real mistake, misunderstanding the real potential of AI and automation. It is not close to superceding general human intelligence, as far as I know.

side-note:
Both the F-14 and the MiG-31 used two operators; however, if those aircraft were given updated designs, it is possible that avionics automation advances in the sensor package especially could make possible highly performant single-operator versions.
(If aircraft-carriers weren’t obsolete, it would be overdue to make a new Tomcat version for fleet defense and area coverage. As it is, to the extent of the imperative of power-projection, I believe the aircraft carriers are best replaced with air-superiority/tactical-strike versions of the B-1/B-21 platforms — dogfighting could be relegated to more advanced missile/drone hybrids)

About AI/automation:
In spite of this, neither automation nor ‘AI’ will so soon solve the workload problem, or the demand for human operators. Even if an F-14/MiG-31 could be brought to legacy performance with a single operator, future battle contingencies may require another operator. For example, it could turn out that EW becomes the fulcrum of the battle, and that successfully prosecuting the EW fight requires an advanced and totally engrossed operator; well then in that case, you would need two operators again. It’s kind of a subtle point: with modern avionics, an F-14 could prosecute its 1980s (intercept massed Tu-22M3 formations) missions with a single operator; but there may be new variables (like the need to manage/operate drone swarms) that would indicate a second operator. To be sure, AI can solve some EW tasks much faster than a human, but you still need a human to babysit and tune the machine, to analyze at a high level the tactics of the adversary, and to adjust accordingly. You still need that higher-level meta-operator. We dreamed that the more AI and automation, the less we’d have to do ourselves, but the reality is that we’ve just given ourselves new, higher-order jobs. Charlatans proclaim “general AI” will solve this. Maybe. I’m skeptical.

The idea of using AI for the cognitive workload is possible in some cases — usually with very controlled environment — but not a general panacea. I’m guessing that AI in concert with multi-channel sensors can already out-dogfight any human out there, but they will tend to get lost on edge cases. Also dogfighting is the most simple thing, a dog could grasp instinctively what needs to be done. Tactical brilliance will not come from AI alone, that would require “general intelligence”, which I don’t think is coming, ever, but that’s another conversation. Great AI with brilliant human operators could be a juggernaught, but the intelligence of the machines is not intelligence at all, but an associative/correlative structure; “intelligence” like CIA, rather than “intelligence” like Magnus Carlsen. “Intelligence” agencies construct models of the world, so that policy makers can make informed decisions. This is what AI (neural networks) does basically, it allows highly structured models of the world. It is not, “intelligent” in the synthetic and analytical way that Magnus Carlsen is intelligent. Obscuring this distinction is the heart of the bufoonery coming from synecured futurists like Kurzweil and Musk. If the machine can beat Magnus Carlsen, it’s because it has constructed an associative/correlative model of a huge strategic/tactical tree (distinct from and more comlpicated to design than a complete tree of every possible game, which would be impossible), whereas Carlsen needs to rely on, for the most part, not his comparitively limited experience (compare the number of games played by AlphaGo to the number of games played by its human opponent), but his actual intuitive, synthetic, analytic etc faculties, which remain mysterious (microtubules and quantum reduction may play a role). Btw I’ve done some work (professionally) with CNNs (convolutional neural networks), so I understand how they work.

The dream is that AI and automation can reduce workload and make our lives easy, whereas the reality is that all the tech requires babysitting, and some expertise in interpreting it needs to be cultivated.

Now having said all of that; it may turn out that the actual combat tasks are canned and simple enough for a pilotless Su-57, and all of these dogfighting drones; it’s not so much of a stretch from the Tomahawks and Tacit Rainbows of the past. It doesn’t alter the above arguments, I guess.

Disclosure: I’m an amateur at this military aerospace business; meaning literally doing it for the ‘ama’/love. Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m wrong, but I don’t earn a living at it, and I don’t spend a whole lot of time on it.

90 Comments

Patrick Donnelly on October 02, 2019 · at 2:27 am EST/EDT

Joined up thinking detected in Russian .mil!

Good article

Due to their nature, we never see underwater drones? Call them large intelligent torpedoes fired from underwater concrete emplacements?

Still think the window for USA is narrowing all the time as .mils realise the potential of the tsunami bomb. Coastal cities are almost unique to 5 eyes alliance.

Djakarta “move” may be far inland on Kalimantan?
Anaam on October 02, 2019 · at 2:37 am EST/EDT

Excellent article, very informative.

I will point out that the BrahMos’s range has been extended to 800Km (tested just this week), the lack of range in previous BrahMos varieties was due to legal restrictions, (the MCTR which restricted range to under 300 miles), since Russia got India included into this treaty organization, the range of the BrahMos has been rapidly extended.

A land based battery has also been developed, as well as a mountain hopping version and an air launched version (which acts as a very destructive long range air to ground missile).

The Su-57 project was cancelled/criticized by India not for technical reasons or any justifiable complaints or concerns about the Su-57 RCS, it was due to commercial reasons. The Indians contend that Russia reneged on the requirement of technology transfer v(expecting India to take on 50% of the development costs, but only agreeing to Tech Transfer of only 20% of components and no commitment to provide the source code for the all computing elements (this was the deal breaker). Having the source code would allow India the ability to adapt different missiles and radars to future variants and to confirm no backdoors into a networked war platform.

With respect to Tech Transfer, (TT) India had a bad experience with Russia with over the Su-30MKI. Although, where many of revolutionary ideas that went into that platform, came from the Indian engineers and Indian Airforce personnel (Su-30MKI later was reincarnated in Russia as the Su-30SM), Russia dragged its feet on TT for years and the current situation is that those “manufactured” in India are just assembled from knock down kits. Russia is no saint when it comes to honouring commercial deals, witness how the they screwed Iran over a promised S-300 that the did not deliver (due to Israeli & western pressure) until a decade later.

Indians nitpicking on RCS and other technical criticisms are just a cover excuse they gave for the break down of the deal for commercial/political reasons. These criticisms of Su-57 on technical grounds are often without merit nor heartfelt, they are political in origin.
- Avatar on October 07, 2019 · at 9:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  India has proved herself to be an ungrateful country whose elites will always lick anglosaxon boots and thus do not deserve all Russian goodies which nobody else would give to India.
der einzige on October 02, 2019 · at 6:25 am EST/EDT

For us ordinary people it only means that it will be very difficult to fight these new weapons. It doesn’t matter if it is the USrAel, Russrael or Chinrael NWO is coming. Through Western policy, people will accept it with open hands from the East.

Chabad – ordinary fascism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDg40zMGtA0

maybe Saker will translate this film for you in the break in promoting Chabad Trump, Chabad Putin and Kissinger Xi

Referring to yesterday’s show of strength in China

The mainstream are framing the rise of China as a competitor to the US in the same terms as they did the Cold War with the Soviet Union. And, just as the Cold War was a charade facilitated by lend lease and technology transfers, so, too, is the New Cold War facilitated by technology transfers to China that are framed as “IP theft.” James Corbett joins Jim Goddard on This Week in Money to set the record straight on how the Clash of Civilizations 2.0 is being used to justify domestic clampdowns, social credit surveillance, and military build up. – The Corbett Report

The China Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnbLrDgkFxw
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 6:03 pm EST/EDT
  
  Even paranoiacs have real enemies.
- Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 8:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  The so-called Clash of Civilizations is just another Anglo American propaganda rebranding of the Anglo-American Empire’s drive for a Full Spectrum Tyranny over the entire planet.
  
  In this sense alone is it a continuation of the Cold War, which was another pretext for Anglo American world dictatorship–even as the Anglo Americans concealed their malign agenda behind their favored civilizational deceptions that they represent Freedom and Democracy™.
  
  This is the true deception that no one–including the Anglophone “alternative” media–has the honesty to admit:
  America is not the Land of the Free, and indeed it has *never* been about freedom–dating back to its Founding slaveowners and ethnic cleansers like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
  
  In reality, America is the Land of the Free Lie.
  
  The American Sea of Deception
  https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-american-sea-of-deception/
  - Mulga Mumblebrain on October 03, 2019 · at 2:29 am EST/EDT
    
    The Land of the Fee. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, buddy! No soup for you!
- Azorka1861 on October 03, 2019 · at 4:51 pm EST/EDT
  
  Add to “Chabad — ordinary fascism”
  You can change the video’s subtitles to English
  
  This film is about what the Chabad religious organization really is. Their political influence i
  is growing every year. They no longer hide their goals. Their supporters are in power both i
  in Russia and in the United States of America. What do they really want and what are they
  striving for? You will learn about this and much more from the film “Chabad – Ordinary
  Fascism.”
  ———————————————-
  Matveev about Chabad
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=226&v=yyWeMPWRdtU
  This video is a fragment about the Chabad current, which controls the territory of the CIS,
  from a lecture by Vladimir Matveev “The face and masks of Zionism”
  
  Vladimir Ivanovich Matveev – Biography
  https://v-matveev.org/en/about/
  - Azorka1861 on October 04, 2019 · at 4:47 am EST/EDT
    
    Fursov Andrei Ilyich is the author of more than 200 scientific works, including
    nine monographs, a Russian historian, social scientist, publicist,
    and sociologist.
    In 2009 he was elected an academician of the International Academy of
    Sciences (International Academy of Science).
    According to the results of the Internet voting of the scientific community in
    2000-2004 and 2005 entered the lists of “100 leading socio-humanitarian
    thinkers of Russia”
    
    A.I. Fursov and Matveev. Part 1 – 11/18/2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-zJlqrF94 (27:19)
    
    A.I. Fursov and Matveev. Part 2 – 11/18/2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWp4Yb8e-34 (24:42)
    
    A.I. Fursov. Answers to the Community. Part 3 – 11/29/2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBz16ZodObk (27:12)
    
    You can change the videos’ subtitles to English
- Azorka1861 on October 06, 2019 · at 7:19 pm EST/EDT
  
  The Austrian Ewald Stadler member of the Eurpean Parliament accuses Western media
  of lying about Crimea and the coup in Ukraine – Nov 29, 2014
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=6Zonjw4wnQs
  
  Interrogation of a captured soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
  how to earn money for the dead – Nov 29, 2014
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=vk_bFFXECUs
  
  Ukraine’s Right Sector is Jewish
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=A8Qpmv89ykw
  
  Donetsk Road of DEATH To the Donetsk airport 500 m
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=5ZqWNqZSBjo
  
  You can change the subtitles from Russian to English
  
  Source:
  http://russ-history.blogspot.com/2016/03/2014-ukraine-ordinary-jewish-fascism.html
Sourpuss on October 02, 2019 · at 7:26 am EST/EDT

Drones, used as a massed assault, are an unknown, to my mind, because of the “asynchronous warfare” aspect: an attack where the sky is literally darkened by drones, with countless thousands at once. Random bombing, although not strategic, remains a tool of total warfare; and, because it will not be proven that the “mothership” drone guidance is crackable, until a massed assault occurs, we remain in the laboratory; and, that massed drones can strike, effectively unhindered, with high precision, must remain a likelihood, because, the means of computer communication, is not limited to any one method; and such an assertion would be more than academic, especially since, jamming can’t be effective against the “unknown”. A direct “line-of-sight” communication, remains viable, especially since a swarm may have a command structure of individual units, with every tenth, or fiftieth, drone commanding its own group; which allows for a “disposable” concentration of technology; the soldier drones can still have a default, without added software. Line-of-sight communication technology, isn’t defeatable, especially with multiple, grouped layers, of electronic “eyes”; this scenario gives so many possibilities, especially with the discrete nature of drones, and the “build-to-suit” aspect of this technology; as for a relay structure, the variables remain immense. I can think of no possible effective counter.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 6:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  We should give peace a chance, Sourpuss.
- Cosimo on October 03, 2019 · at 1:43 am EST/EDT
  
  Drones have little or no need for radio control because inertial navigation is very cheap and light.
  
  About 20 years ago, Scientific American magazine had an article describing a very accurate inertial guidance system that was relatively cheap and lightweight. It used about a mile of fiber optic cable, wound on a core, about the size of a hand. It also required a laser, and, as I recall, two photo detectors. So very cheap and getting cheaper. That 20-year old design probably used standard 50 micron diameter cable, but if anyone makes 10 micron cable, it would be 1/5 as heavy. I’d guess total weight is much less than a kilogram. So it could go on a relatively small drone.
  
  The other issue with small drones is how low they can fly. Saker supposed that TERCOM, terrain contour matching, is too costly, and I suggest that terrain contour matching can be very cheap. I suppose he is thinking the drone needs a map of a large area, and/or using old electronics. But in a scenario like bombing a stationary infrastructure like an oil refinery, the attack drones only need the terrain data for a single line to the target. The issue is acquiring the terrain map, which could be derived from satellite radar mapping (a one-time expense for all drones in the region), or from a pathfinder drone that surreptitiously flies the path from the launch point to the target, then returns and downloads the terrain data. That pathfinder will need an automated “vision” system based on serious computing power, to avoid crashing into the ground. Once the terrain is “mapped” for the flight path, the cheap attack drones only need to have the terrain data and to compare it to the inertial navigation data.
  
  Obviously those drones are at least in the several hundred dollar range or more, but the terrain-following radio-silent navigation system is not a burden if the drone has a modern $10 microprocessor and maybe $20 worth of memory. So that’s plenty cheap and nearly undetectable because such drones are emission-free. And yes, as someone pointed out above, one drone with the navigation system could shepherd other, cheaper, drones linked up with low-power line-of-sight infrared that is undetectable.
  
  In short, cheap drones are a game-changer.
  - Amerikanski on October 03, 2019 · at 3:55 pm EST/EDT
    
    @Cosimo,
    
    Those laser ring gyros are hopelessly obsolete. It was an interesting idea, but…
    
    Here is a place in Japan making inertial sensors now:
    https://www.siliconsensing.com/products/gyroscopes/crm-pinpoint/
    Small (5.7 x 4.8 x 1.2 – CRM100/102 6.3 x 5.5 x 2.7 – CRM200/202)
    
    They use a little ring of silicon ‘diving boards’ — they vibrate like the halteres of a housefly. Any inertial motion causes the changes in their amplitude/frequency which can be measured.
    
    Their accuracy is remarkable, they run on 3 volts and use very little power.
    - Cosimo on October 03, 2019 · at 6:41 pm EST/EDT
      
      MEMS sensors are certainly lighter and cheaper than laser ring gyros, but not as good,
      apparently. This is above my pay grade, but here’s what I found quickly:
      
      a.) Accuracy MEMS sensors seem to be nowhere near as accurate as laser ring gyros.
      The best MEMS sensor from the site you linked (and thank you for that) has a typical
      Allan Variance of 12 ⁰/hour. Analog Devices has the ADIS16490 that only varies 1.8 ⁰/hour.
      https://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/raqs/raq-issue-139.html
      
      By comparison, a laser ring gyro like Honeywell’s GG1320, only drifts .014 ⁰/hour
      and my guess is that’s typical for laser ring gyros, since two Indian scientists, Kishore
      and Chattopadhyaya quoted approx the same .014 ⁰/hour in a 2007 paper.
      The Honeywell gyro is a little over 3 inches diameter, maybe 1.5 inches high.
      Honeywell https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/~/media/aerospace/files/user-manual/gg1320-usermanual.pdf
      Indians https://www.sensorsresearchsociety.org/SENSORS2007CD/CP_70.pdf
      
      So on a 100 mph flight, at the 100 mile mark, the Japanese MEMS could have you off course by
      20 miles; Analog Devices MEMS would be off by 3 miles, and an ordinary Laser Ring Gyro
      would be off by 1.3 feet. At 200 mph, all these errors are cut in half at the 100 mile mark.
      
      b.) ITAR Groups like the Houthis obviously can’t get an ITAR license and the hassles
      of illicit acquisition are not worthwhile since the remains of a purchased MEMS taken
      from a crashed drone would point straight to the arms trafficking network. Deniability
      and denying the enemy info about logistics is well worth the cost of laser ring gyros.
      
      One thing that didn’t get mentioned in Saker’s interesting essay, is that modern weapons
      have also become more anonymous. For example, the news photos I’ve seen of the many
      Takfiri drones that were shot down around Hmeymim air base do not obviously point to
      any one external foreign power, although these drones are all the same design.
      - Amerikanski on October 03, 2019 · at 8:02 pm EST/EDT
        
        well, maybe ‘hopelessly obsolete’ is too strong a term.
        
        But I would think the remains of a laser ring would also be identifiable as to manufacturer. How many open air weapon bazaars does a part need to pass through to achieve anonymity?
        
        And your remark about identifiability would apply to almost any modern electronic part of any complexity. Microprocessors, cameras, etc. have serial numbers, both on the human readable tag, and an electronic signature in the silicon.
        
        I expect quite a lot of this high tech stuff will soon be making its way along the “new silk road” from the Shenzen area of China. MEMS sensors are among the common components of modern ‘smart phones’.
        
        Cosimo on October 04, 2019 · at 1:32 pm EST/EDT
        
        Camera phone motion sensors are far from good enough for drones, even if they are periodically calibrate the azimuth sensors against earth’s magnetic field.
        /
        IIRC, the laser ring gyro needs two low power lasers and there might be a slightly difficult spectral stability, If so, then Helium-Neon lasers, for example, could be built from basic commodities. If the less stable (pulsed – not CW, and less spectral purity) laser diodes in $2 laser pointers are usable, then the lasers are a total non-issue. Photo-detectors are a non-issue because any transistor is a photo-sensor if the silicon surface is exposed, and straight-out photo-sensors are produced in high volume for a zillion applications.
        
        I think you are correct that microprocessors are very identifiable, even if they may not have a serial number. But something like the Arduinos are sold in very high volume and could be trafficked anonymously. Arduinos are easy to use, but a very determined organization with technical resources might be able to use the powerful microprocessors from discarded smart phones. We are now in a very different world because “junk” one can sometimes find lying in the street can be repurposed to be the brains of a sophisticated weapon.
        
        I suppose someday the Chinese will develop their own processors similar to or compatible with the open-source Arduino series, and will sell them in high volume, simply because that’s a profitable business and ecosystem, but it would also encourage home-grown technological industries in Eurasia, perhaps even in the whole world.
        
        Amerikanski on October 04, 2019 · at 2:26 pm EST/EDT
        
        Truly, I do not know much about inertial guidance (as you have noticed). I found the Japanese MEMS company with a brief web search. The point I was trying to make is that inertial sensors are commodity electronics, and they are quite small and low power.
        
        I think we have different weapons / missions in mind. I was thinking of the tiny multirotor drones weighing only an ounce or two. Either used for surveillance, or with some ‘AI’, for a precision attack on something small, like a soldier behind a row of sandbags.
        
        You can take apart an off-brand ‘smart phone’ and get MEMS sensors good enough for maybe a kilometer radius with a micro-drone. Also a small, powerful microprocessor. Probably without involving any arms treaties. Just need the smarts to integrate it with some software.
        
        To build a small plane, weighing a hundred kilograms to half a ton or more, you might want a laser gyro. I don’t think I am smart enough to build a laser myself (or a gyro), but yeah, they are accurate. Just a matter of setting up a standing wave in an optical (fiber?) loop, and keeping track of peaks/troughs, which remain stationary in an inertial frame of reference. If such a system weighs a pound or two, it will conveniently fit in a hundred kilogram plane, good for 100 miles or so.
- Amerikanski on October 05, 2019 · at 7:39 pm EST/EDT
  
  I can’t stop thinking about the likelihood that small cheap 2- or 4-rotor UAVs in swarms will have a major effect on the near future battlefield. Devices weighing less than a couple hundred grams.
  
  They don’t need anywhere near the ‘intelligence’ of the Slaughterbots from the video below. The ‘intelligence’ of a swarm is an emergent property, like that of a colony of ants or termites. And what the individuals lack in sensor accuracy or intelligence can be compensated to some degree by a multitude of measurements.
  
  They could communicate with any of several technologies, radio, infrared, ultrasound, even visible light. The swarm would beep and chirp and blink to each other, maintaining cohesion of the group, and as you said, @Sourpuss, they would not be visible from far away. The beeping blinking lot of them would be upon you with little notice, if you are a designated target.
  
  And, even with ‘dumb’ microprocessors from 20 years ago, they could be given a new mission, reprogrammed, targeted, on-the-fly. Could change from an air attack mission to a field of small antipersonnel mines. They could perch on convenient solid surfaces and lay in wait for passers-by. Could be a persistent threat for days, weeks. . . and then deactivated by a command, from the ones who know how to properly address the swarm.
Sourpuss on October 02, 2019 · at 7:57 am EST/EDT

Drones that are independently/internally guided, in a total warfare scenario, are likely as well; especially since total warfare is essentially mass murder: so, this could involve incendiaries, anti-personnel weapons, or various banned weapons, all aimed indiscreetly. Once the effective quantity, of successful individual attacks, becomes a secondary factor, the primary factor of targeting, is no longer as critical; this scenario takes on an ominous and threatening aspect with the continued escalation of total warfare in modern times.
Yeah, Right on October 02, 2019 · at 8:17 am EST/EDT

With respect to Kalibr missiles mounted in standard containers, all that would be required is some means of tossing the empty container overboard after the missile is fired and the possibilities are, honestly, mind-boggling.

There are container ships currently in service that can hold 20,000-plus containers.

Imagine a container ship loaded with 10,000 to 20,000 containers, each one holding a Kalibr missile.

Fire a salvo of, well, let’s say twenty Kalibr missiles.
Toss the empty containers over the side.
Fire another salvo of 20 missiles.
Toss those containers over the side.
Fire another salvo.
Rinse, repeat.
Rinse, repeat.

And keep repeating until tens of thousands of Kalibr’s have totally destroyed your war-making potential.
Every airbase wiped out.
Every bunker splattered.
Every communications array taken down.
Every ship in port sunk.
Every weapons depot reduced to rubble.

And all done by a single, solitary container ship.
- Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 11:48 am EST/EDT
  
  you just wait when the chinese have their own version of kalibre in their dongfengs. they already have the vlccs plying the oceans and your idea is very much doable 20,000 containers? it will be outmoded in the years to come. expect double the capacity. that will be the ultimate nightmare of pentagon! and the stupidest thing pompeo did was to finger iran. he is now encouraging small american bullied countries to buy drones/missiles from iran. why? they got the clue from pompeo.
- Conjecture on October 02, 2019 · at 2:33 pm EST/EDT
  
  Probably wouldn’t work for both logistical reasons and because once the first salvo was fired, satellites would track the source relatively easily. It wouldn’t even need to be that accurate as a ship in a vast ocean would stand out like a sore thumb. Unless there were container based defensive intercepting missiles on board with camouflaged radar and control, the game would be over for that ship. Anything else defensive would be highly visible. Better to have many units in many different places -and hiding in plain sight so to speak.
  - anodinous on October 03, 2019 · at 5:13 am EST/EDT
    
    did i see some submarine tanker a while ago? how long until the submarine container carrier? all it needed to do was release them underwater, make them float, and a trail of launcher pads would emerge and release mayhem.
    with the added bonus it could be used for weird trade routes, silkroad on steroids.
  - Yeah, Right on October 04, 2019 · at 8:05 pm EST/EDT
    
    Even if you “track the source” you still have to react. That takes time, and even tick of the clock that passes as you scramble the F-15 jets means another salvo of Kalibr’s on their way. By the time the retaliatory strike arrives all they will be doing is sinking a bog-standard container ship.
    
    And if that is a problem, well, fine. Two container ships, 500 km apart, each with 10,000 containers. The counter-strike is nearly at the first target when it goes “dark”.
    
    Meanwhile, 500km away, the second container ship starts firing its first salvo of missiles…..
    
    It’s a big ocean. The aggressor has the advantage.
- James Speaks on October 02, 2019 · at 7:27 pm EST/EDT
  
  How much would that many cruise missiles cost?
  - Conjecture on October 02, 2019 · at 10:12 pm EST/EDT
    
    US Tomahawks vary in price from $800,000 to about 1 million -the difference probably covers the payoff to various MIC lobbies and enablers. I found it hard to get a figure on Russian ones but one estimate was $500,000. Kalibr variants probably cost more.
    
    So $10 billion for the 20,000 cruise missiles minus any quantity discount. A lot of eggs in one basket, athough at 75 million pounds or so of cargo it might be low enough in the water to evade radar..
gT on October 02, 2019 · at 8:44 am EST/EDT

Agreed, excellent article from the Saker. Interesting how Russia now has so many weapon systems which it doesn’t really need. The Su-57 is unnecessary, because the new S-70 hunter drone can probably be controlled from the old MiG-31 with a WSO or the superb Su-34, while the latest Su-30 and Su-35 variants can handle the dogfights adequately.

Likewise the T-14 mbt’s are unnecessary, because the latest T-90, T-80 and T-72 variants can handle anything on the conventional battlefield. Add in the BMPT “Terminator” to that and Russia is undefeatable in land warfare.

Then Russia has a plethora of unmatched anti-aircraft weapon systems, and adds to that ever newer and better anti-aircraft weapon systems all the time.

The only benefit of the Su-57, T-14 and BMPT “Terminator” on Armata is, apart from the fact that they are unmatched currently, that they can be fully automated with AI’s for wars of the 22’nd century. Maybe Russia should now start with getting a handle on the ET’s, else Russia’s armaments engineers are going to get bored.
Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 9:02 am EST/EDT

The AngloZionists only need one class of effective weapons system: WME – Weapons of Mass Extermination. When they find themselves no longer able to extract global natural resources by training, arming and ordering the uneducated and ignorant classes to subdue and kill the poorest and weakest countries, they will likely initiate a global extermination campaign to wipe out “the global herd” while relaxing within their “bunkers.” Those who doubt this are invited to make a driving tour along the mountains between Pennsylvania and Virginia and look for little white signs that read “AT&T-No Trespassing.” There is more than just a “data center” under that rock.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 6:08 pm EST/EDT
  
  Bio-warfare, Anon, for sure. African Swine Fever for humans. CRISPR rules, OK. It protects lovely property, too.
  - ben sampson on October 03, 2019 · at 4:00 am EST/EDT
    
    Bio-warfare already in play: check GMO mosquitoes in the Amazon
headrick on October 02, 2019 · at 9:09 am EST/EDT

Flying in formation or in conjunction with supersonic S-70 stealth drones will allow heavy weight arms and radars without any need for finding ways to fit this stuff into a single conformal weapons bay like the F35 does. Maybe some drones can be even fuel drones which only carry range extending fuel for the controlling SU 35. Drones might even refuel drones so the whole formation might be 1/3 fuel drones.
Maybe this is not a reasonable thing to do if the mission can be accomplished with just a few S-70’s not a whole formation of them. I wonder how secure com is handled between S-70 and SU-35?
Mr. P on October 02, 2019 · at 9:19 am EST/EDT

As a boy scout we had adult combat vets from WW2 for leaders… One of these men, a 2nd Lt in the Infantry of US was stationed pre-D-Day not far from London. The nazi cruise missile V1 flew over frequently, for a period, he said. And they would shoot at these with small arms…occasionally they hit one. These were fairly fast missiles – about 450 MPH. While modern similar machines are smarter smaller and probably cheaper (more numerous) and better directed – they seem to be similarly vulnerable to small arms fire.

The modern missile “drone” or “cruise” would, one expects, be a good target for what in my ignorance seems practical … very big shotguns… with audio and broad-band radar target acquisition and some 17 years old kids to load and supervise.

By the way, as to radar tracking, I see that the Germans claim to have tracked F35 by passive radar as the pair flew out…searchterm> “f35 tracked passive radar”

It has become perfectly obvious that Empire needs to 1) make a deal, and 2) restructure so as to survive without plunder.

At some point it shall do these two things, or dissolve and open itself thereby to occupation and forced restructure.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 6:12 pm EST/EDT
  
  Imagine what Thanatopia could do with that two trillion a year that they currently waste on bullying the world. The merchants of death, the Lockheeds and Raytheons etc, could as easily build renewable energy, ecological repair machines and scrubbers to remove and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, as unusable weapons of mass destruction.
zagadka on October 02, 2019 · at 11:22 am EST/EDT

Very interesting. But I am honestly not very optimistic about the current state of Russian weapons development. I think that Russia is unfortunately lagging behind in a few very important areas, which are:
– drone development,
– artificial intelligence

Drones are the weapons of the future, and I think they will rely more on artificial intelligence in the future, to prevent the issues with radio transmissions described in this article. A drone that is NOT remotely controlled, but just flies independently is a lot harder to combat.

Please see this video (it’s in Russian) about mini drones and AI, it starts at around 1:35. They give a demonstration about how these mini drones can be deployed, in swarms for example from an airplane. These mini drones have a small explosive device, lethal to humans if it explodes near a human head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njW1KyaiI80

The video is about how Russia is indeed lagging behind the US and also Iran. About Iran I don’t know, but about the US, yes. I think this type of technology is a lot more efficient than nuclear weapons as it can be used to kill half of the city somewhere and leaving everything else intact.

What do you guys think?
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 6:14 pm EST/EDT
  
  I think that planning to kill half a city’s inhabitants is not a moral quest.
  - zagadka on October 03, 2019 · at 8:22 am EST/EDT
    
    And do you think using atomic bombs, napalm, white phosphorus are also not moral quests?
- Amerikanski on October 02, 2019 · at 7:39 pm EST/EDT
  
  @zagadka,
  
  The device in your Russian video is the Slaughterbot:
  
  https://invidio.us/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA
  
  The video was produced as an warning against embracing such technology.
  - Mulga Mumblebrain on October 03, 2019 · at 2:40 am EST/EDT
    
    It’s the old ‘grey goo’ horror story.
  - zagadka on October 03, 2019 · at 8:21 am EST/EDT
    
    This is just one of those defense companies, presenting it, probably at this stage still a prototype.
    - Amerikanski on October 03, 2019 · at 3:11 pm EST/EDT
      
      It’s worth noting that the Saker said he thinks he can probably put together something low tech. The technology is out there. You can get little motors, blades, sensors for GPS/GNSS, cameras, inertial sensors, radio network chips, incredibly powerful microprocessors, and lithium batteries from online vendors. There is quite a lot of software in the public domain — for networking and stability and navigation. And we have seen videos from talented amateurs making light shows with a swarm of these little things blinking LED lights at night.
      
      The Slaughterbot video is not from a defense company. It was from this group: https://autonomousweapons.org/in-the-press/ Of course, I don’t expect much from the UN, we have seen how useless it is over the last 5 years or so. Raytheon does not need to advertise like that, its customers come to it. There is actually a little government publication describing proposed defense contracts — excruciatingly boring reading if you are not the Pentagon, a defense contractor, or the Saker.
      
      And, based on information leaked out of the ‘dirty tricks’ departments (for example the fact that they were supporting people like Jeffrey Epstein, the Takfiri mercs in Syria, and the orcs of the Ukraine), I have no doubt that there are some people working on building them in a secret project somewhere. The Autonomous Weapons group is likely to have less effect on its target issue than Greta does on hers.
- Amerikanski on October 02, 2019 · at 7:57 pm EST/EDT
  
  I worry that some military planning weenie in a cubicle farm in the Virginia suburbs (with a billion dollar budget) will see that video and say “Gawrsh, Murphy, I never thoughta that!” and start building those things. The technology is not that far beyond the ‘intelligence’ of a current ‘smart phone’.
Anonius on October 02, 2019 · at 1:24 pm EST/EDT

S, excellent article. I think you, for fun, could have said “best armed forces in human history”. Now back to the article. Just this morning I read an article, where writer claimed that German Radar manufacturer said that they had no problem tracking two F-35 for more than 150km, before they landed at Berlin Show and stayed on the ground. Hmm, I wonder why.
My take on the “invisibility” is “it does not work” but it helps if you disable opponent’s scanning devices, or at least some of them particularly the satellites (communication and otherwise). Airplanes such as F-35 would be dead in the water if they can’t talk to Internet. This is why Soviets believed in simplicity.
A totally agree with your take on the idiotic “generation numbering” which is intended to maim the “idiot’s brain” into thinking that “oh this is higher number therefore better. Simple real life exercises proved that F-16 beat the $it out of F-35 every time. Now, it is my understanding that Russians are calling 6-th generation planes: “pilotless airplanes”, which could be flown at extreme speeds, which otherwise would “zombiefy the pilot – read unconscious”. It is also my understanding that Russian 6th-gen will have pilot’s seat and controls, just in case. I say to that: “Smart thinking”. In my mind, MIG-31 seems to be a very good proto-plane for this application, and I am not saying that SU-57 could not be spruced up to that level.
Amerikanski on October 02, 2019 · at 1:47 pm EST/EDT

Addressing the issue of ‘backward’ Russian electronics, I can attest that the capabilities of ’80s and ’90s era microelectronics were never fully explored. I worked with a few examples. There was always a push toward more complexity, and rarely/never an effort to optimize what was already working.

Now, our modern oh-point-oh-oh-something-micron processors can do amazing things. They are being put to work to recognize faces, fingerprints, and voices, and for self-driving vehicles (ha!). Amazingly, they can run all that fuzzy logic ‘intelligence’ stuff, and spit out answers in real time. Billions of transistors, clocked in excess of a GHz.

But, even if Russia is a couple generations behind the latest silicon geometry, there is plenty of processing power available in a 100 MHz DSP, especially for things like flying and navigation. Those technologies have been mature for decades. If Russian engineers have been working on signal processing instead of abstraction layers, they are probably pretty good at it by now.
- Amerikanski on October 02, 2019 · at 5:41 pm EST/EDT
  
  And countermeasures are frequently simple things, depending on the nature of the threat.
  
  I could envision an anti-swarm weapon consisting of another multirotor drone flying above the swarm and dispensing sticky dental floss, as an example.
  
  I’m sure the more creative engineers will come up with other things. . .
  - Conjecture on October 02, 2019 · at 10:48 pm EST/EDT
    
    I have often wondered why dogfighting military jets don’t have reverse missiles mounted or a mechanism to eject ball bearings, possibly with tiny parachutes to suspend them. One ball bearing will wreck engine compressors and even if there are two engines it would end any dogfight.
    
    It’s a bit like the Hollywood version of ancient battles with massive muscular broadsword wielding opponents. Certainly the broadsword could cleave in two but the reality is a light epee would get a wrist or ankle hit before the broadsword was even fully raised. Once weakened, finishing off the opponent is easy -and possibly not even necessary.
    - Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 11:32 pm EST/EDT
      
      Just like cluster bombs…
    - Mulga Mumblebrain on October 03, 2019 · at 2:43 am EST/EDT
      
      The Roman short sword, the gladius, was very useful for close quarters butchery.
      - Amerikanski on October 03, 2019 · at 3:21 pm EST/EDT
        
        In our brave new world, to be replaced by the butterfly net for microdrones.
      - Conjecture on October 04, 2019 · at 2:15 am EST/EDT
        
        Try telling that to Hollywood, where size does matter. The same ones you see portrayed as climbers who would not make it past 100 vertical feet. Power to weight ratio for endurance ignored – the real thing is too weedy looking. Spewing venom, overweight barrel chested macho men with zero empathy and too much muscle between the ears.
terebinth on October 02, 2019 · at 3:34 pm EST/EDT

> Sidebar: some Russian analysts have speculated that in order to operate with the S-70 the Su-57 has to be modified into a two-seater with a WSO operating the S-70 from the back seat […] If an an engineer reads these lines, I would appreciate any comments or corrections! After all, this is just my best guess

It’s all about the cognitive workload.

Attack helicopters almost universally are two-seaters, because the business of keeping a low flying helo out of the trees and power-lines doesn’t leave much energy for acquiring targets, dealing with threats, and there are a lot more relevant threats to a low-flying helo than an air-superiority fighter operating at 10km altitude and from 100km behind the battlefront (AA tactics typified by dashes forward and then retreating to safety), where there isn’t much to run into, and the number of enemy platforms that can engage is a much smaller number than those right at the battlefront, down in the weeds, so to speak.

Every fighter designer would like to put not just two operators into their fighters, but 3, 4, 5, 6,… Really the more the merrier, because of cognitive workload; modern high-intensity conflict is just so busy you want to slow time down in order to OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) in a coherent way, but you can’t. If those designers could figure out a way to put 6 operators into every Su-35, it would make for a much more performant platform. Of course the tradeoff is payload, fuel, structure, etc. They try to balance, and I imagine that the internal debates are fierce over exactly where the optimum is.

Personally, in recent years, I was fascinated by the desicion to make the MiG-35 a two-seater. Historically, the frontal aviation (Lo side of the HiLo mix in USAF buzz-eze) was single-seater, so this is a departure, even for MiG. (Some press had said that the version on display was a D-variant trainer, but I’ve never seen the main marketing prototype of a combat aircraft be its trainer version. The MiG-29 may have a two-seater trainer version, but all the airshow/arms-bazaar events were the main single-seater version.) I think they’ve concluded that at the low-altitude frontal aviation mission, in a high-intensity conflict, the workload will be so severe that one operator could not bring the MiG-35 to its full potential, not even close. So many sensors to babysit and interpret, so many targets, so many threats, twiddling the knobs on the EW systems alone (it’s a kind of hand-slapping game played the EM spectrum) could be a demanding job. This is at low altitude, in the weeds, at the front. The air-superiority game is played way up, at higher speeds, and there is less workload, for many reasons, including seemingly prosaic ones like there is no mountain to plow into up there.

In the 1980s, the Soviet designers of the MiG-29 adhered to a doctrine relying on AWACS for situational-awareness, an inherently weak network design with single points of failure. The modern doctrine (guessing) accounts for the reality of unavoidable and devastating deep interdiction raids on sensors, bases, infrastructure: the MiG-35 is designed to operate from concealed and dispersed dispositions close to the front, to use its formidable sensor package in order to *reconstitute*, as a node in a network, the aggregate situational awareness of the entire army group. In that sense, the MiG-35 has the many of the responsibilities of an AWACS platform, and this means workload, analysis, interpretation, EW fiddling, etc. And of course it carries weapons and will be responsible –in addition– for waxing critical stuff up there in the weeds. Insane Workload.

Su-57s would be playing a much more rareified game, as mentioned, fewer relevant targets/threats. Still, I can see the issue being hotly debated by the pros actually responsible for these things. Adding a drone swarm management to the mix definitely gives the two-seater proponents a strong case; it’s just mildly disturbing the the futurist-inspired vision we’ve been fed about humans being replaced by intelligent machines; for some of these designers, putting two operators instead of one would be tantamount to a regressive disease, a failure, over and above any pains they might feel about sacrificing fuel capacity etc. That would be the real mistake, misunderstanding the real potential of AI and automation. It is not close to superceding general human intelligence, as far as I know.

side-note:
Both the F-14 and the MiG-31 used two operators; however, if those aircraft were given updated designs, it is possible that avionics automation advances in the sensor package especially could make possible highly performant single-operator versions.
(If aircraft-carriers weren’t obsolete, it would be overdue to make a new Tomcat version for fleet defense and area coverage. As it is, to the extent of the imperative of power-projection, I believe the aircraft carriers are best replaced with air-superiority/tactical-strike versions of the B-1/B-21 platforms — dogfighting could be relegated to more advanced missile/drone hybrids)

About AI/automation:
In spite of this, neither automation nor ‘AI’ will so soon solve the workload problem, or the demand for human operators. Even if an F-14/MiG-31 could be brought to legacy performance with a single operator, future battle contingencies may require another operator. For example, it could turn out that EW becomes the fulcrum of the battle, and that successfully prosecuting the EW fight requires an advanced and totally engrossed operator; well then in that case, you would need two operators again. It’s kind of a subtle point: with modern avionics, an F-14 could prosecute its 1980s (intercept massed Tu-22M3 formations) missions with a single operator; but there may be new variables (like the need to manage/operate drone swarms) that would indicate a second operator. To be sure, AI can solve some EW tasks much faster than a human, but you still need a human to babysit and tune the machine, to analyze at a high level the tactics of the adversary, and to adjust accordingly. You still need that higher-level meta-operator. We dreamed that the more AI and automation, the less we’d have to do ourselves, but the reality is that we’ve just given ourselves new, higher-order jobs. Charlatans proclaim “general AI” will solve this. Maybe. I’m skeptical.

The idea of using AI for the cognitive workload is possible in some cases — usually with very controlled environment — but not a general panacea. I’m guessing that AI in concert with multi-channel sensors can already out-dogfight any human out there, but they will tend to get lost on edge cases. Also dogfighting is the most simple thing, a dog could grasp instinctively what needs to be done. Tactical brilliance will not come from AI alone, that would require “general intelligence”, which I don’t think is coming, ever, but that’s another conversation. Great AI with brilliant human operators could be a juggernaught, but the intelligence of the machines is not intelligence at all, but an associative/correlative structure; “intelligence” like CIA, rather than “intelligence” like Magnus Carlsen. “Intelligence” agencies construct models of the world, so that policy makers can make informed decisions. This is what AI (neural networks) does basically, it allows highly structured models of the world. It is not, “intelligent” in the synthetic and analytical way that Magnus Carlsen is intelligent. Obscuring this distinction is the heart of the bufoonery coming from synecured futurists like Kurzweil and Musk. If the machine can beat Magnus Carlsen, it’s because it has constructed an associative/correlative model of a huge strategic/tactical tree (distinct from and more comlpicated to design than a complete tree of every possible game, which would be impossible), whereas Carlsen needs to rely on, for the most part, not his comparitively limited experience (compare the number of games played by AlphaGo to the number of games played by its human opponent), but his actual intuitive, synthetic, analytic etc faculties, which remain mysterious (microtubules and quantum reduction may play a role). Btw I’ve done some work (professionally) with CNNs (convolutional neural networks), so I understand how they work.

The dream is that AI and automation can reduce workload and make our lives easy, whereas the reality is that all the tech requires babysitting, and some expertise in interpreting it needs to be cultivated.

Now having said all of that; it may turn out that the actual combat tasks are canned and simple enough for a pilotless Su-57, and all of these dogfighting drones; it’s not so much of a stretch from the Tomahawks and Tacit Rainbows of the past. It doesn’t alter the above arguments, I guess.

Disclosure: I’m an amateur at this military aerospace business; meaning literally doing it for the ‘ama’/love. Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m wrong, but I don’t earn a living at it, and I don’t spend a whole lot of time on it.
- Andrew S MacGregor on October 03, 2019 · at 6:49 am EST/EDT
  
  Thank you terebinth, it was a pleasure to read and to comprehend.
- Anonius on October 03, 2019 · at 10:08 am EST/EDT
  
  terebinth, Reading your comment makes me think that the quality of it suggests that you are more than in love with the stuff, although anything is possible.
  Amazing comment.
Outlaw Historian on October 02, 2019 · at 4:18 pm EST/EDT

I wonder when the Taliban will begin using drones? Will Syria use drone swarms to sweep the Outlaw US Empire out of Eastern Syria?

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Outlaw US Empire’s geopolitical goals can no longer be obtained, although it could continue to interdict the Eurasian development and integration efforts of China and Russia for several more years. Whether Trump realizes it or not, his aggressive weaponization of the Outlaw US Empire’s remaining soft power tools will soon render them ineffective and generate blowback currents that will prove hard to manage. IMO, it’s very fortunate that neither Russia or China covet hegemony over Eurasia such that the Outlaw US Empire would soon discover its vaunted weapons are #1 in corruptive value but next to useless on the battlefield.

Yesterday elsewhere I wrote about the Empire’s lack of an Industrial policy in comparison’s to China and Russia’s and provided additional examples to augment others presented showing the wide expanse of technological advantage they enjoy that will only increase thanks to their vision and corresponding lack thereof by the Outlaw US Empire. Indeed, the most important hybrid weapon being used against the Empire is one it created for itself–its majestically undeserved self-image of itself as exceptional and privileged such that it’s incapable of self-reflection and thus unable to recognize the problems its created for itself that only it can fix. And with the current crop of politicos and Neoliberal magnates and mandarins, that’s not going to happen soon.
Harry_Red on October 02, 2019 · at 4:21 pm EST/EDT

This Bastion / Kaliber systems and the P-800 Oniks & Brahmos & Klub missiles are an absolute work of art and Russian craftsmanship ! …….used in a saturated form, non one on Earth stands a chance against these systems, as of today. The Americans have beocome too corrupt to produce anything of significants to compete with the Russians.

The Russians have been developing these systems as the Saker correctly mentions for at least 30 to 40 years (late 70s – early 80s). They are literally decades ahead of the West. The Russians have perfected missile technology into an art form :-).
Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 4:41 pm EST/EDT

What this good article does not cover is the propulsion systems for drones. If it’s your roto-copter drone it does not fly far. If it does the battery weight is informidable. Then it comes to other form of propulsion that’s the jet engine if it’s fast or a small two cylinder two stroker. That needs a lot of fuel which then makes it a missile format with a large signature and medium altitude.
Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 4:42 pm EST/EDT

Also, using a Pantsir that costs between $125K-$1M to knock out a $1000-$2000 drone is not good math. So, AA is the only option but its close range and close to target. I think drone’s are a special challenge.
- Jacques Cuse on October 02, 2019 · at 8:13 pm EST/EDT
  
  Rather silly remark. The comparison is between the cost of the Pantsirs AA gun ammo vs the cost of the drones it kills, thus very good math. The cost of the Pantsir itself should only be compared to the value of the people and objects protected.
  - Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 11:51 pm EST/EDT
    
    That’s how they sell it. Same with a pill that costs $1M as life is worth more. If they swarm it for the price of $1M all math is off, unless you have unlimited money and weapons. These are like ants coming for sugar. Ask the Israelis, they know… A 10c condom filled with gasoline, lit and floated caused massive burn of wheat fields than a missile could. They shot missiles at those condoms too. And lost.
- John McGinnis on October 04, 2019 · at 8:27 am EST/EDT
  
  Wrong math. It is worth spending $125k to knock down a $1k drone IF what is being protected is a $2Bn B2 bomber. (Though the $$$ being spent all round astound me.) Its the value of the TARGET that is the critical factor, not the defensive system.
  - Anonymous on October 04, 2019 · at 11:52 pm EST/EDT
    
    Drones don’t go for max value. Usually max impact.
Anonymous on October 02, 2019 · at 5:06 pm EST/EDT

The Russians have been field testing the S-500 system in Syria, probably just radar/communications. The MoD stated there were a few problems which are being or have been resolved. I suspect they have gathered some very useful data on the F-35, F-22 etc that will be very useful if TSHTF.
- Jacques Cuse on October 02, 2019 · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
  
  No, have NOT. Was false info. S-500 cannot be tested in an environment like Syria.
  - The Saker on October 03, 2019 · at 10:07 am EST/EDT
    
    Okay, here is what happened: Izvestia claimed, referring to various MoD sources, that the S-500 was tested in Syria. That is both true and false, apparently. The full system was not tested, of course, considering its range (600km) there was no point. However, it appears that some COMPONENTS were, indeed, tested in Syria.
    That is, as far as I know, what happened.
    The Saker
- The Saker on October 07, 2019 · at 4:37 pm EST/EDT
  
  I just read an article saying that the US has forward deployed the F-22/F-35s the Middle-East and that they are now flying patrols near Iranian airspace which puts them directly under the “eye” of the Iranian version of the S-300. I am quite sure that the Iranians will gladly share with Moscow :-)
  Cheers
Mulga Mumblebrain on October 02, 2019 · at 5:58 pm EST/EDT

You have it quite correct about the ruling US ‘elite’. They are barking mad, psychopathic, narcissists who seem actually to believe that Russia and China are primitives who cannot ‘innovate’, and will be swept away by ‘Yankee know-how’, as exemplified by the Transformers movies, which they were told were documentaries made by the Pentacle-sorry, -gon. And what are the prospects of drone attacks thwarted by killer, defense, drones?
Terebinth on October 02, 2019 · at 10:25 pm EST/EDT

Apologies in advance, I just had to link this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-unveils-doomsday-bomb-while-us-military-concentrates-diversity

“Celebration of #diversity and making sure we understand the flesh colored band aids is not about being politically correct, it’s a warfighting imperative.”

It’s a Warfighting Imperative , you got that?

I don’t even think Brezhnev era USSR had to maintain this much cognitive dissonance.
- Mulga Mumblebrain on October 03, 2019 · at 2:46 am EST/EDT
  
  ‘One, two, three, four, What are we fighting for, Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn, I want non-binary toilets, man’.
The Real History on October 02, 2019 · at 10:42 pm EST/EDT

According to many US military specialists, the real warfare, or battlefield is the human brain. I don’t mean it in any metaphorical sense. It is literally that. Here is a very eye opening introduction by Dr. James Giordano https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZ7zp50gpM
- Terebinth on October 02, 2019 · at 11:27 pm EST/EDT
  
  Wrt to the slow drip limited hangouts on the neurological weapons:
  (thanks for the linked video, very informative)
  I’ve always wondered how they keep diplomats heads of state safe from these EM/neuro-affecting weapons during summits and so on. For example, surely they’d be going all out on Putin if they could get away with it; preventing it would be quite a technical challenge.
  Must be teams of EM specialists following them around and monitoring at all times. What sorts of tacit agreements restrict their employment against peers who can retaliate with similar means.
  
  In an actual war, these systems wouldn’t play much of a role, because they require proximity. Tremendous threat to human freedom, generally speaking.
  - The Real History on October 03, 2019 · at 7:50 am EST/EDT
    
    I think the true target of the brain warfare is not some distant nation – it is always its own population.
    
    5G deployment is part of that warfare, masked as yet another “convenience”.
    I read an interesting article (I believe it was in American Science publication) about the possibility that 5G is capable of communicating with some new Monsanto crops that are already in existence. This is the scariest stuff out there.
- Terebinth on October 03, 2019 · at 9:36 am EST/EDT
  
  I read an interesting article (I believe it was in American Science publication) about the possibility that 5G is capable of communicating with some new Monsanto crops that are already in existence.
  
  That would be a neat trick. While not strictly speaking physically impossible, it’s way beyond current day bio-engineering capabilities.
  
  If they’re going to be working with corn, maybe they could give them teeny little vocal chords too, then the farmer could get his whole field of corn singing the latest robotic pop tune, it would wisp and weeze out over the field like a demi-god’s whisper.. Reminds me of Stephen King’s “The Tommyknockers.”
  
  Agreed these tech are primarily population control tools, with some applicability to the low-intensity conflicts waged globally. Dystopian scenarios abound.
  
  Should mention these techs have also a great potential for good. Corruption and much of the most destructive high-level crime could be rendered when everyone’s internal state is more or less transparent — might make everyone much more honest. Ultimately it’s about who is in control, who is in oversight, and then the creative application of it.
Biswapriya Purkayastha on October 03, 2019 · at 6:21 am EST/EDT

I would call only *one* weapons system produced by the Imperialist States of Amerikastan “world class”. That is not the F16, it’s the basic, ugly, no frills, brutally efficient A10 Thunderbolt II “Warthog”. It has absolutely no extras, no way to make money for the Amerikastani military industrial complex, and therefore no supporters. Good thing too, because it’s a wonderful machine.
- Conjecture on October 03, 2019 · at 12:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  The brilliant Pierre Sprey along with John Boyd – a real character and Thomas Christie all of the ‘Fighter Mafia’ had a major role in the design of both the F-16 and A-10. The book about Boyd is well worth a read. Hated by armchair brass, there were numerous attempts to court martial Boyd.
- The Saker on October 07, 2019 · at 4:23 pm EST/EDT
  
  Very good point!!!
  Yes, the A-10 is a formidable weapon.
  You are absolutely right!
  Thanks for bringing it up.
  The Saker
  PS: but the F-16 is awesome too, and pretty cheap to boot!
Mr P on October 03, 2019 · at 9:52 am EST/EDT

I have the idea that there could be a tactic using balloon/glider drones. These could be unpowered and release at high altitude in swarms…nearly impossible to track if proper material, difficult to defend against, and expensive and possibly awkward to destroy (like if they’re over another country). Glide ratios show that this may be a reasonable and cheap addition “another worry” for the defending agency. Another opportunity for attacking agency. The H2 to float is easy to field generate…, and for a 50 kg gizmo the gas bag (polythene) is not terribly large, something like 20 feet in diameter… Properly used, in swarm, these could be transpac range…as Japan illustrated long ago. Of course, as loyal subject of X, I should like to see them used on evildooerz.
Craig Mouldey on October 03, 2019 · at 11:23 am EST/EDT

The indispensable people with the greatest military on earth should be very afraid of those little toys hiding in containers. Have one or more of these innocently sailing near the coast or even unloading such containers onto a truck or train and it looks like checkmate to me. There is no way to defend against it.
Bob on October 03, 2019 · at 8:14 pm EST/EDT

Anti-personnel drones, the size of dragon flies and deployed in the thousands, could bring interesting times to any territory, especially if body/facial recognition is added.
Sten-Erik Björling on October 04, 2019 · at 1:12 am EST/EDT

Networked systems where also developed and deployed in Sweden for the Viggen fighter system / command and control already during the 70’s.
John McGinnis on October 04, 2019 · at 8:16 am EST/EDT

For all the gee-wizardly tech the most successful combat platform the Russians ever developed was the Tupleov ‘Bear’. Not that it was superior, quite the contrary. But it did force the US to spend 5x as much money in developing counter measures.

There are more ways to defeat an opponent than duking it out. Like say forcing them to spend themselves into oblivion.
- The Saker on October 07, 2019 · at 4:28 pm EST/EDT
  
  I would say that the Bears are if not superior, but still truly awesome: they fly extremely fast (fastest prop aircraft as far as I know, but you might want to doublecheck that) and extremely far. They are ideal cruise missile launchers and they are still being modernized today. The anti-sub version was great too.
  Not that I envy the men crammed into this “Soviet-style”. Modern Russian aircraft have dramatically improved the comfort of the crew (just look at the amazing Su-34).
  Good point, the Bear is a fantastic platform indeed.
  Thanks!
vot tak on October 04, 2019 · at 9:18 am EST/EDT

“The usual gang of trolls will probably object that the Russian computer/chip industry is so far behind the supposedly much superior western solid-state electronics that this is all nonsense; there was a human sitting inside the S-70; this thing don’t fly; the Su-57 is a 4th gen aircraft much inferior to the amazingly superb F-22/F-35; and all the rest of it.”

This sort of “everything american is automatically best” sort of chauvinism is something I’ve encountered all my life. The indoctrination is amazingly deep and thorough. It also makes much of american produced historical studies more and exercise in propaganda, than serious historical analysis. With the internet, one sees the adolescents chanting “america ueber alles” in swarms and many discussion sites are simply buried in nonsense due to these little boys.
- Mr P on October 05, 2019 · at 6:28 am EST/EDT
  
  Yes, I agree, the chauvinistic “murkinbest” has long been part of the mythic set of belief…and I have seen it in operation in Holland as well as the US. However I recall that, in my youth, the American mythic “best” was German (or German-nazi)… Harvey Korman’s movie with Fonda and Nancy Sinatra “Wild Angeles” provides examples. In my youth we knew that Harleys were nifty oil leaking problems, while BMWs were superb. Similarly, the AK rifles are superior in combat to the US weapons, and everybody knows it. The old M1 was the last of the good stuff, in it’s day…such is the mythos…
  
  But what’s the effect of this essentially revangist self-deception, whether of foreign or domestic stuff?
  
  While murkinz cling to myth, their reality evaporates and the classical empires (which are thought of as States, Persia, India, China, Russia and so forth) continue to proceed to eclipse the US.
  
  It, the chauvinism, seems to feed the Tai Chi – every time Murka attacks a target, Murka weaken and the opponent gains strength. This is also an example of the “old army game”…essentially a game of self-deception that induces a “mark” to give the operator free money (or whatever).
  
  This is not good, and not bad…it’s just self-deception…or hallucination…whatever. But it creates the ground for serious errors in logic, and for surprises! As we have seen…
Teresa May on October 06, 2019 · at 3:25 pm EST/EDT

These pretty geegaws look really top notch don’t they! What their real practical use is is hard to say, since all surface vessels will be well removed in a WW3 scenario.

I remember reading the first winter requests of the German Wehrmacht generals in WW2. It was for riflemen. That was the major shortage. Not tanks, not artillery, not even aircraft. What they needed most was infantry riflemen.

These Russian toys are wonderful but rockets, just like aircraft, don’t win wars. It is the basics that count. Boots on the ground, a steady eye and a clean rifle. This is what really counts.

While the Russian infantryman may not be so well equipped or provisioned as a US grunt, he is more motivated, better trained and better officered. Rockets and drone warfare are for the arm chair generals. Infantry men with a good rifle are for active serving officers, because this is still the backbone of any military.

Interesting article all the same. Thank you for writing it.
casey on October 06, 2019 · at 6:54 pm EST/EDT

Holy cow! That controlled flat spin, turning in three axis! Are you sure there is a human flying that thing?
- The Saker on October 07, 2019 · at 4:29 pm EST/EDT
  
  yes, absolutely.
  the Su-57 will have the OPTION of being flown pilotless, but that is for the future. A lot (including tactics) will have to be developed for that.
  Yes, I am sure, definitely a pilot in there (probably Sergei Bogdan).
  Cheers!
NATO Blues on October 07, 2019 · at 11:59 am EST/EDT

Yesterday I went to my local annual air show in CA which featured a very awesome performance by an F-35. Slowly hugging the coast with its nose at a 45 degree angle was one of several cool maneuvers. However, the sheer noise and power emanating from the afterburner struck fear into my little son’s heart. He covered his ears, looked down and wanted to leave. The F-35 is a fearsome and intimidating weapon. When the little guy wanted me to carry him down the beach to get back to our bikes, I realized that humans are mostly a grotesque (misshapen slobs everywhere), failed monkey. Humanity has risen to great heights on occasion and accomplished great feats. But on the whole, we are defined by our endless greed, betrayal and violence, the F-35 is testament to that.
- The Saker on October 07, 2019 · at 4:34 pm EST/EDT
  
  I have been around most current fighters and they pretty much all sound like that.
  I remember once standing about 150m behind a Su-27 taking off on afterburner and the noise was deafening.
  The manoever you describe is a miracle of software, really, and most modern fighters can do that pretty well, I suppose that even that flying brick (F-35) can do that halfway decently.
  But there is also so much beauty in these machines.
  I love the sight of the French Rafale which is as formidable as it is beautiful.
  But, of course, the Su-27 (and derivatives) brought that beauty to a unique level :-)
  In the US, I still prefer the F-16 over the (rather ungainly) F-15 or F-18.
  The F-117 is also a great sight to hold (and it is rather maneuverable for such an aircraft).
  I think that it makes more sense to think of the F-35 as an airborne battle management system then as a fighter-bomber. But that is just my personal preference.
  Cheers
abel on October 10, 2019 · at 9:22 am EST/EDT

A squadron of any size can accompany a single manned Su-57 and can be controlled in any direction by a simple joystick and multiply the Su-57 radar range and payload. They can be bunched up or spread out, each being aware of the other. I don’t think the US airforce, missile stations or naval vessels with survive a week. Besides the nuclear powered sub-drones can loiter outside ever Nato and commercial port and flush city and all a kilometer inland with a 100ft tsunami. That leaves a land invasion. Lol!
Anonymous on November 04, 2019 · at 5:18 pm EST/EDT

Question;
How many Su 57 Russia plans to buy?
Answer;
About 70 until 2025

Question;
How many F-35 US intends to buy?
Answer;
About 4000 in several years

Any other questions???