[Goose]

In another subject for this thread, here is an AI evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian Rail Network

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vulnerab...e&ie=UTF-8

Another view of the Russian Rail System:
 https://www.cna.org/analyses/2023/04/rus...way-troops

Here is a fairly negative view of our ability to deal with current drone technology.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/...s-military

If you consider that a Reaper drone costs around $30 000,000 dollars, how many Ukrainian level drones can you buy for that amount of money?

There are a few questions that would also need to be asked in addition to the one you pose. One obvious one is why does the Reaper cost so much and what has been done to lower that cost? Another one is does the Reaper do critically important things that Ukrainian drones cannot, and visa versa? It is similar to asking how many Ukrainian drones can be purchased at the same cost as an F-35?
 

One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
 
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/americ...acted-war/

No, were are not. We also have absolutely no intention of fighting this kind of war. That would be surrendering our vast advantage in air power, among other things. We (and by extension NATO) intend to make Russia fight our kind of war, not vice versa. Obviously given that intention, we need to be damn sure we can do so. To do that, we need to develop appropriate means to counter what Russia might do to prevent that. I am pretty sure we are doing a less-than-great job of that. Part of the problem is that out military sometimes forgets that we don't want to become Ukraine or Russia, but we do need to be able to fight Russia. We don't want to be the best equipped and best trained Mavic drone army in the world. We want to be an army that can crush the best trained and best equipped Mavic drone army in the world. IMO that can't be done by adopting the same weapons and tactics as Ukraine and Russia. OTOH the tactics and weapons of Ukraine and Russia have to be evaluated and considered.

One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?
 
I am perhaps becoming a believer in the Ukrainian approach to drones warfare. 

Depends on what we want to change. IMO the US and NATO could never fight a war the way Ukraine is fighting theirs now, even if it were a "good idea", which IMO it is not. Ukraine is making do with what it can. Would it work against the US and NATO? I very much doubt it. Keep in mind Ukraine's only path to victory is that Russia quits or cannot continue. It has not happened in the last three years and it appears unlikely that is going to happen within the next two years, at least. Would the American public sit still for Ukraine sized casualties and continuous missile bombardment for that long? I doubt it.

[Goose]

In another subject for this thread, here is an AI evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian Rail Network

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vulnerab...e&ie=UTF-8

Another view of the Russian Rail System:
 https://www.cna.org/analyses/2023/04/rus...way-troops

Here is a fairly negative view of our ability to deal with current drone technology.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/...s-military

If you consider that a Reaper drone costs around $30 000,000 dollars, how many Ukrainian level drones can you buy for that amount of money?

There are a few questions that would also need to be asked in addition to the one you pose. One obvious one is why does the Reaper cost so much and what has been done to lower that cost? Another one is does the Reaper do critically important things that Ukrainian drones cannot, and visa versa? It is similar to asking how many Ukrainian drones can be purchased at the same cost as an F-35?
 

One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
 
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/americ...acted-war/

No, were are not. We also have absolutely no intention of fighting this kind of war. That would be surrendering our vast advantage in air power, among other things. We (and by extension NATO) intend to make Russia fight our kind of war, not vice versa. Obviously given that intention, we need to be damn sure we can do so. To do that, we need to develop appropriate means to counter what Russia might do to prevent that. I am pretty sure we are doing a less-than-great job of that. Part of the problem is that out military sometimes forgets that we don't want to become Ukraine or Russia, but we do need to be able to fight Russia. We don't want to be the best equipped and best trained Mavic drone army in the world. We want to be an army that can crush the best trained and best equipped Mavic drone army in the world. IMO that can't be done by adopting the same weapons and tactics as Ukraine and Russia. OTOH the tactics and weapons of Ukraine and Russia have to be evaluated and considered.

One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?
 
I am perhaps becoming a believer in the Ukrainian approach to drones warfare. 

Depends on what we want to change. IMO the US and NATO could never fight a war the way Ukraine is fighting theirs now, even if it were a "good idea", which IMO it is not. Ukraine is making do with what it can. Would it work against the US and NATO? I very much doubt it. Keep in mind Ukraine's only path to victory is that Russia quits or cannot continue. It has not happened in the last three years and it appears unlikely that is going to happen within the next two years, at least. Would the American public sit still for Ukraine sized casualties and continuous missile bombardment for that long? I doubt it.