Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[raimius]

Considering that these types of drones have relatively small payloads, we don't need to build shelters hardened against 500lb bombs.  An enclosure that guarantees relatively low levels of protection and standoff would probably render FPV attacks mostly ineffective...and might actually be affordable.

[McJay Pilot]

12 minutes ago, raimius said:

…and might actually be affordable.

Affordable? Our MIC is not interested in affordable! 

[JimNtexas]

On 6/3/2025 at 11:27 AM, disgruntledemployee said:

Modern day sappers.

Demonstrated, and now every base with aircraft on the ramp is a huge risk.  Anti-drone tech/systems is where our R&D/Acquisition resources need to be focused and fast.  And hard shelters, but those take a lot of space and if you leave the door open, it can still go boom.  

Z made a statement, and maybe the scale was set to what occurred, but what if his army was able to hit more bases, more planes, more radars/AA/Comms/Arty/drone stations/etc?

I don’t think we need very many tabV harden shelters like we have in Europe here in the United States. But pretty much every valuable airplane to include tankers and high dollar transport should be in enclosed building. Drones  can fly into open doors or into hail, sheds or sun sheds.  
 

This is such an obvious precaution to take. I doubt anything like that will ever happen instead will be laser and microwave energy, directed weapons that built by one of the big contractors for a few million per unit and we can only afford one per base that’s the most likely outcome of what we can learn from this Ukrainian Pearl Harbor

Edited June 4 by JimNtexas

[Biff_T]

We should take used compact car tires and cover all of our heavies with them.  

[fire4effect]

On 6/2/2025 at 4:50 PM, Prosuper said:

If I was an enemy commander I would try the same thing, except I would target every Tanker we have in Conus and make our bombers and fighters dependent landing for refuel.

Non stealthy Tanker Fleet. The Achilles Heel of a moder Air Force. In WW2 the lightning advance to Germany from Normandy stalled due largely the inability to keep the vehicles gassed up. Same reason the German Counter Offensive died in the Ardennes. No fuel to keep the Panzers moving. Even in Ukraine the original invasion stalled because of lack of fuel and the Javelin. If something is carrying a lot of fuel, it's inherently ready to turn into a fireball.

[Majestik Møøse]

On 6/4/2025 at 10:18 AM, JimNtexas said:

What we can learn from this Ukrainian Pearl Harbor

Since they were already at war it’s more like the Doolittle Raid; calling it Pearl Harbor makes it sound like Russia is some kind of victim.

[Clark Griswold]

On 6/5/2025 at 11:37 AM, fire4effect said:

Non stealthy Tanker Fleet. The Achilles Heel of a modern Air Force.

Concur but we have options if we are willing to / allowed to change force structure and fleet composition 

The -47 sounds like it will have the range needed to be less dependent on the tanker, if we think the priority fight is the Indo-Pacific then we prioritize systems for that theater and divest some of the older shorter range platforms to get more of what we need.  

Not immediately of course but soon.

Off hand, more B-21s, unfornicate the -46 and certify for unrestricted ops, get a long range UCAV (not a CCA).  The F-15EX probably mixes well into this too for its reported range (790 NM). That’s a relevant combat range with a tanking south of the PI to ingress to the Taiwan Strait.  

 

[disgruntledemployee]

What is to stop our enemies from getting into the US, buying some containers and rigs, and parking them a mile from a base?  Other than good explosives, not much.  Fleet composition doesn't stop this.

[SuperWSO]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

What is to stop our enemies from getting into the US, buying some containers and rigs, and parking them a mile from a base?  Other than good explosives, not much.  Fleet composition doesn't stop this.

Come on, it’s not like we let our adversary buy large plots of land adjacent to our military facilities… wait… it appears new information has just been handed to me. Fuck.

[Clark Griswold]

What is to stop our enemies from getting into the US, buying some containers and rigs, and parking them a mile from a base?  Other than good explosives, not much.  Fleet composition doesn't stop this.

No doubt, I think we believe it can’t/won’t happen to us but a novel attack is certainly on the bingo card
Hard shelters, land setbacks, anti UAS systems, new Prohibited Areas around bases, jail time for violators, etc… nothing is 100% but you need to try to get there and overlapping defenses add up
Not every base immediately but start now, this nation needs to get into a different place in terms of security mindset, it would give the enemy some insight into our sources and methods but declassifying some intel to tell the why for this shift to the public, like the Why We Fight movies in WW2, call them Why We Prepare, might shift the zeitgeist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

No doubt, I think we believe it can’t/won’t happen to us but a novel attack is certainly on the bingo card
Hard shelters, land setbacks, anti UAS systems, new Prohibited Areas around bases, jail time for violators, etc… nothing is 100% but you need to try to get there and overlapping defenses add up
Not every base immediately but start now, this nation needs to get into a different place in terms of security mindset, it would give the enemy some insight into our sources and methods but declassifying some intel to tell the why for this shift to the public, like the Why We Fight movies in WW2, call them Why We Prepare, might shift the zeitgeist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m thinking of how easily chemical/biological/radiological materials could be dispersed effectively across a dense population area.

You could literally just get a coke can worth of something scary lethal on a drone that cost hundreds of dollars, and swarm it across a place like Wall Street at lunch time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

I’m thinking of how easily chemical/biological/radiological materials could be dispersed effectively across a dense population area.

You could literally just get a coke can worth of something scary lethal on a drone that cost hundreds of dollars, and swarm it across a place like Wall Street at lunch time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup
With the capes that non state actors have demonstrated lately and the level of support rogue states have been willing to give VEOs recently, we’re all three of lucky/blessed/well protected by professionals to not have this happen
As with gun control, I’m for a certain amount, in relation to UAS, we probably need to expand the FARs and prohibit recreational flight in certain areas for that reason, require a UAS transponder always to tie back to an operator certificate, drone detection systems deployed, etc…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup
With the capes that non state actors have demonstrated lately and the level of support rogue states have been willing to give VEOs recently, we’re all three of lucky/blessed/well protected by professionals to not have this happen
As with gun control, I’m for a certain amount, in relation to UAS, we probably need to expand the FARs and prohibit recreational flight in certain areas for that reason, require a UAS transponder always to tie back to an operator certificate, drone detection systems deployed, etc…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like gun control, the restrictions you mention will only restrict lawful operators.

[Clark Griswold]

Like gun control, the restrictions you mention will only restrict lawful operators.

You’re right, it will impede some amount of freedom of the law abiding but overall the benefit IMO would be worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fire4effect]

21 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Concur but we have options if we are willing to / allowed to change force structure and fleet composition 

The -47 sounds like it will have the range needed to be less dependent on the tanker, if we think the priority fight is the Indo-Pacific then we prioritize systems for that theater and divest some of the older shorter range platforms to get more of what we need.  

Not immediately of course but soon.

Off hand, more B-21s, unfornicate the -46 and certify for unrestricted ops, get a long range UCAV (not a CCA).  The F-15EX probably mixes well into this too for its reported range (790 NM). That’s a relevant combat range with a tanking south of the PI to ingress to the Taiwan Strait.  

 

Looks like this thread continues on a couple parallel tracks. Agree with above. One game changer was the INF treaty going away allowing things like the Typhon Mid-Range Capability (combination of Tomahawks and SM-6s) for the Army. PRC tried intimidating the local countries including the Philippines in the South China Sea and the Philippines was only too happy to have the Typhon set up in their country. Putting as many of those mobile systems in that area should give the PRC some sleepless nights. Whether that results one day in a "Cuban Missile Crisis" of the Indo-Pacific is a whole other discussion.

[Clark Griswold]

24 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

Looks like this thread continues on a couple parallel tracks. Agree with above. One game changer was the INF treaty going away allowing things like the Typhon Mid-Range Capability (combination of Tomahawks and SM-6s) for the Army. PRC tried intimidating the local countries including the Philippines in the South China Sea and the Philippines was only too happy to have the Typhon set up in their country. Putting as many of those mobile systems in that area should give the PRC some sleepless nights. Whether that results one day in a "Cuban Missile Crisis" of the Indo-Pacific is a whole other discussion.

Yup, I’ll close the loop on my opinions on UAS/guns saying some control but not over control.

Arming all the countries we can and pulling them into our orbit to give them multiple problems?

Yes

More IRBMs in theater to give them pause?

Yes

 

[raimius]

On 6/7/2025 at 7:03 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Yup
With the capes that non state actors have demonstrated lately and the level of support rogue states have been willing to give VEOs recently, we’re all three of lucky/blessed/well protected by professionals to not have this happen
As with gun control, I’m for a certain amount, in relation to UAS, we probably need to expand the FARs and prohibit recreational flight in certain areas for that reason, require a UAS transponder always to tie back to an operator certificate, drone detection systems deployed, etc…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Airspace rules, yes, as it would give greater authority to disable offending drones.

Operator certificates and transponders?  Nah, all that really does is add an extra civil fine/misdemeanor the DOJ can impose after someone conducts an act of war/terrorism.  Not effective deterrence.

[TreeA10]

6 hours ago, raimius said:

Airspace rules, yes, as it would give greater authority to disable offending drones.

Operator certificates and transponders?  Nah, all that really does is add an extra civil fine/misdemeanor the DOJ can impose after someone conducts an act of war/terrorism.  Not effective deterrence.

Reminds me of laws or signs stating "Gun Free Zone.". Yeah, right.  I'm sure some criminal type bent on criminal activity came across one of those signs and turned around because the sign said no guns.  

If someone is going to do something war or terrorist like with a drone, they don't care about your laws, signs, etc.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

Reminds me of laws or signs stating "Gun Free Zone.". Yeah, right.  I'm sure some criminal type bent on criminal activity came across one of those signs and turned around because the sign said no guns.  

If someone is going to do something war or terrorist like with a drone, they don't care about your laws, signs, etc.

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. 

 

I'm completely against that position, but trying to boil it down to "the bad guys will have it anyways" is excessively simplistic.

 

This applies even more so to drones. It is simply easier to do something illegal with a tool that is legal than it is to do with an illegal tool. If we go so far as to say that civilian drone ownership is illegal, then the ROE for drones gets very simple very fast. See it, shoot it.

 

I'm against making guns illegal because I believe in the core premise of the second amendment. The risk of government-induced tyranny is far worse than the loss of life associated with the legalization of firearms. I do not believe that premise extends to drones. 

 

I'm also not advocating for making drones illegal (haven't given it enough thought), but it's a hyper-libertarian argument to say that "bad guys will have it anyways" and almost every hyper-libertarian argument collapses upon contact with reality.

[HeloDude]

48 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. 

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

[Lawman]

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

Yes, however nobody was confused that you may or may not be holding cocaine legally.

That’s the premise with highly regulating a commercial substance, same reason while criminals can get hand grenades or fertilizer, they can’t just walk into any old shop and go and acquire it, nor would an attempt to buy 1000lbs of certain precursor chemicals go unnoticed.

If drones were turned into a highly regulated item, the guy trying to walk one to a sporting event would stick out pretty well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, raimius said:

Airspace rules, yes, as it would give greater authority to disable offending drones.

Operator certificates and transponders?  Nah, all that really does is add an extra civil fine/misdemeanor the DOJ can impose after someone conducts an act of war/terrorism.  Not effective deterrence.

Respectfully disagree 

The registration and other admin is to distinguish legitimate drones from nefarious ones, if a legitimately registered drone is used for ill, the transponder tied to a certificate is to give a starting point for the investigation.  

I could probably come up with more but eventually I’d start arguing for a Scorpion jet purchase to protect us against rogue drones so let’s just call it bygones 

Break Break 

Sabotage in Sweden 

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-reveals-mass-act-unexplained-sabotage-2081784

 

[uhhello]

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Respectfully disagree 

The registration and other admin is to distinguish legitimate drones from nefarious ones, if a legitimately registered drone is used for ill, the transponder tied to a certificate is to give a starting point for the investigation.  

I could probably come up with more but eventually I’d start arguing for a Scorpion jet purchase to protect us against rogue drones so let’s just call it bygones 

Break Break 

Sabotage in Sweden 

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-reveals-mass-act-unexplained-sabotage-2081784

 

We're not discussing this in the realm of follow on investigations.  If this is used, the nation won't be worried about investigations.  It will be very clear who and why.  

[Clark Griswold]

We're not discussing this in the realm of follow on investigations.  If this is used, the nation won't be worried about investigations.  It will be very clear who and why.  

Maybe maybe not, depending on the size and scale, an op like the ones the Ukrainians just did yes, a single attack like an assignation probably not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

Yup. But since not everything in the universe is correlated to everything else in the universe, I'll need you to expand a little bit more. 

 

There are also examples of countries that severely punish drug use, and as such have wildly lower usage rates. Again, that's not me endorsing the punishment, but to deny the reality that it *can* be controlled is silly. 

 

And there's a whole separate conversation about whether or not something becomes pointless just because it cannot be pursued to perfection. Just because you *can* get meth doesn't mean we should legalize it. Fewer meth heads is a societal good. But we can start another thread on the inanity of libertarian purism if we want to continue that discussion.