The key takeaway from Frank's analysis is that the U.S. military needs a different mix of high-cost and low-cost weapons. The president's $1.5 trillion budget proposal makes clear that the Pentagon has no interest in any trade-offs between the two. More of everything is the name of the game. The military establishment is chalking up the weaknesses exposed by the Iran conflict as a valuable learning experience whose price will be paid by crowding out other spending priorities. That's what I'd call a troubling mindset.
My understanding is that Steven Feinberg and his group are attempting to bypass traditional defense contractors in an effort to acquire 350,000 AI drones costing $5,000 each within two years. Is that false? I think that you might have insight into this.
I don't have an insight on this, Guy. I am generally aware that the Pentagon is making an urgent push for low-cost drones, but this is not a field I'm working in. My main resource is the Council on Foreign Relations, whose network is strong on these issues. I made that comment on Frank's post based on listening to one of their programs. Sorry I have nothing more to offer.
This article contains several serious errors. The burning of Japan's cities in WWII was vital. Many homes contributed to the war effort with tools in the homes. Of course, the firebombing destroyed these tools. The burning of Japan's cities also set the stage for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both cities burned). To be blunt, firebombing helped persuade Japan to surrender in WWII. The A-10 has long (since 1970, at least) been capable of precision strikes. The main gun of the A-10 could hit a Soviet tank at a range of 1,200 meters. The A-10 can also drop dumb bombs with great accuracy using its 'death dot' (CCIP) capability. The A-10 can also fire the Maverick missile. Long before drones, JDAM was so accurate that operators could pick which pane of glass they wanted a bomb to go through.
The key takeaway from Frank's analysis is that the U.S. military needs a different mix of high-cost and low-cost weapons. The president's $1.5 trillion budget proposal makes clear that the Pentagon has no interest in any trade-offs between the two. More of everything is the name of the game. The military establishment is chalking up the weaknesses exposed by the Iran conflict as a valuable learning experience whose price will be paid by crowding out other spending priorities. That's what I'd call a troubling mindset.
My understanding is that Steven Feinberg and his group are attempting to bypass traditional defense contractors in an effort to acquire 350,000 AI drones costing $5,000 each within two years. Is that false? I think that you might have insight into this.
I don't have an insight on this, Guy. I am generally aware that the Pentagon is making an urgent push for low-cost drones, but this is not a field I'm working in. My main resource is the Council on Foreign Relations, whose network is strong on these issues. I made that comment on Frank's post based on listening to one of their programs. Sorry I have nothing more to offer.
Thanks much.
This article contains several serious errors. The burning of Japan's cities in WWII was vital. Many homes contributed to the war effort with tools in the homes. Of course, the firebombing destroyed these tools. The burning of Japan's cities also set the stage for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both cities burned). To be blunt, firebombing helped persuade Japan to surrender in WWII. The A-10 has long (since 1970, at least) been capable of precision strikes. The main gun of the A-10 could hit a Soviet tank at a range of 1,200 meters. The A-10 can also drop dumb bombs with great accuracy using its 'death dot' (CCIP) capability. The A-10 can also fire the Maverick missile. Long before drones, JDAM was so accurate that operators could pick which pane of glass they wanted a bomb to go through.