4 ms·

Reading the comments here is giving me the disturbing realization that the war in Ukraine is extremely valuable to the US because the US gets to collect immense

Reading the comments here is giving me the disturbing realization that the war in Ukraine is extremely valuable to the US because the US gets to collect immense amounts of data to inform perspectives on how modern technology is revolutionizing warfare with minimal risk to American troops. And that's with technology in the hands of an extremely motivated ally against one of our top rivals. This opportunity doesn't come very often, and I can imagine there are a lot of parties interested in it persisting at least until the value in the observational data starts to tail off. Along with other concerns, this may be a reason to parcel out exactly what tech gets given to Ukraine at which times.

kornhole 2y ago
I have been watching the warfare via several Telegram channels and observe how important drone warfare now is. I watched 5 $10M Abrams tanks destroyed by $500 FPV drones. Close combat on troops is also conducted with drones with remarkable precision. We don't know how much of the targeting and execution by Russia is automated verses manual, but many experts in this field agree that Russia's technical capability is at parity and sometimes exceeds NATO's such as hypersonic missiles.
- exhilaration 2y ago
  I thought Russia's hypersonic missiles were a failure, with the Ukrainians shooting them down with 30 year old Patriot missiles? There were a lot of articles about it last year, here's one: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/09/what-ukraines-shoot-down-hypersonic-missile-patriot-says-about-future-weapons/390498/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/09/what-ukraines-...
  - kornhole 2y ago
    That was fake news. https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/05/14/confirmed-ukraine-lying-about-taking-down-hypersonic-missile/ https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/05/14/confirmed-ukraine-ly... Additionally, Iran claims that Israel did not intercept any of the hypersonic missiles they fired at Israel. NATO does not possess any hypersonic missiles. Some people might say that NATO is keeping them secret, but that makes no sense. Nations exhibit their technologies as a deterrent.
    - kornhole 2y ago
      Further explanation of how it is impossible for a Patriot missile to intercept a Kinzhal. https://sputnikglobe.com/20230510/fact-check-ukraine-didnt-shoot-down-russias-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile-1110235332.html https://sputnikglobe.com/20230510/fact-check-ukraine-didnt-s...
      - blue_pants 2y ago
        Those are not credible sources. From the theinteldrop link: "several sources within the Russian military and defense industry told the newspaper Izvestia on Saturday" From the sputnikglobe link: "Moscow-based military expert Alexey Leonkov told Sputnik"
        kornhole 2y ago
        What makes these sources not credible in your mind? I have not observed them reporting anything incorrectly. They are citing military experts who know the technical capabilities of these weapons and defense systems. If you want to refute what they say, show how a slower Patriot missile could target and intercept a much faster mach 5 missile. It is basic physics without getting deeply into rocket science.
        fennecbutt 2y ago
        "Military experts" != engineers and physicists (usually).
      - hackerlight 2y ago
        Palmer Luckey says Russia's Kinzhal is not a hypersonic glide vehicle so it's not that hard to intercept, unlike what China can field.
jjk166 2y ago
It's worth considering that while the equipment in use in the ukraine conflict is obviously relevant, the nature of the conflict is radically different from what the US would face. Ukraine is literally on Russia's doorstep, allowing Russia to send its units in and pull them back for repairs with relatively limited logistical strain. This allows it to use massive numbers of cold war surplus assets that would not be viable anywhere else on earth. Ukraine started the war with an extremely small air force and has received only very limited support in that regard, meaning it has spent the entire war without air control. This both limits Ukraine's capacity to use tactics which rely on air support and gives Russia the ability to operate its air forces in relative safety. US doctrine is completely based around air superiority. Ukraine had an extremely limited standing army and military industrial capacity prior to the war, and has relied heavily on non-professional troops who volunteered or were conscripted after the war started and received only moderate training, and it is dependent on foriegn support for advanced arms and munitions. The US has both the strongest standing army and the most advanced military industrial complex in human history. The issues Ukraine is struggling with now - pushing into areas Russian troops have spent months fortifying while having to conserve artillery shells, holding off an unending trickle of 60 year old soviet tanks, and having to jerry-rig long range drones to attack targets in Russia - are challenges that simply wouldn't exist if the US were fighting a war. If our goal was really to get useful data that would be applicable to US conflicts, we'd be giving the Ukrainians the means to fight the way we fight.
- kornhole 2y ago
  I agree Ukraine never had a chance against the far superior Russian military. The reason the US and NATO did not officially send ground troops, although many of their people are on the ground, is that it would trigger full war between NATO and Russia which would go thermonuclear. If that ever happened, Russia's larger and more advanced nuclear arsenal (ballistic missiles) would give it an advantage. Their large land mass, twice that of the US, would give them a better survival chance after the fallout.
  - racional 2y ago
    I agree Ukraine never had a chance against the far superior Russian military. A very weird thing to say, given Russia's humiliating defeat (in terms of the objectives it believed it would surely and painlessly achieve) in 2022.
Balgair 2y ago
It was always going to be a terrible tragedy with Ukraine. Vlad committed something much worse than a crime, he committed a mistake (to paraphrase Talleyrand). NATO+ countries aren't fighting him, they are using Ukraine as a proxy, while Vlad is fighting with his own army. NATO has been waiting nearly 80 years to attack Russia directly. They very motivated to make sure that Vlad continues making errors. As such, the longer this war takes, the better for NATO. And, unfortunately, the worse for Ukraine. I think data collection is for sure one aspect, but I think Russian casualties is the largest motivator
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > And, unfortunately, the worse for Ukraine In what way would having the whole of Ukraine annexed like Crimea be better for Ukraine?
  - Sammi 2y ago
    Are charitable reading would be that that was not what was said. It was not said that Ukraine would be better off it it stopped fighting. Only that Ukraine will be worse off the longer the war takes.
  - bllguo 2y ago
    gee what a mystery. how about no more bloodshed for starters.
    - fullspectrumdev 2y ago
      The bloodshed would not end. The Russians are hell bent on ethnic cleansing, as can be evidenced by Bucha and several other places I’ve actually been to.
attentive 2y ago
I have an impression that no modern technology is tested there but rather supplied with ready to be decommissioned 50 year old antics.
- gantron 2y ago
  You're mostly correct that the older tech is the bulk of what's been sent, but there have been lots of batches of newer tech that the US has delivered. [0] These newer companies (Anduril, Skydio, etc.) do it for a few reasons. Some are obvious: they get paid and their systems have a chance at influencing real-world events that the leadership & rank-and-file employees might care about personally. But from a pure product development perspective, fielding these systems is a valuable test opportunity. You've built a great drone but you're not sure how it'll perform in a GPS-denied environment with S-band radio completely unusable? Russian Electronic Warfare teams are happy to curate that environment for you. [0] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2024-01-08/white-house-turns-to-defense-tech-startups-for-help-in-ukraine https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2024-01-08...
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
Did you get the disturbing realization that Russia gets data on the materiel too?
- acjohnson55 2y ago
  Of course they are, but to me at least, it seems like their cost-benefit is very different from the US. I don't think the war is worth it to them just to learn more about warfare.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kornhole 2y ago

I have been watching the warfare via several Telegram channels and observe how important drone warfare now is. I watched 5 $10M Abrams tanks destroyed by $500 FPV drones. Close combat on troops is also conducted with drones with remarkable precision. We don't know how much of the targeting and execution by Russia is automated verses manual, but many experts in this field agree that Russia's technical capability is at parity and sometimes exceeds NATO's such as hypersonic missiles.

exhilaration 2y ago
I thought Russia's hypersonic missiles were a failure, with the Ukrainians shooting them down with 30 year old Patriot missiles? There were a lot of articles about it last year, here's one: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/09/what-ukraines-shoot-down-hypersonic-missile-patriot-says-about-future-weapons/390498/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/09/what-ukraines-...
- kornhole 2y ago
  That was fake news. https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/05/14/confirmed-ukraine-lying-about-taking-down-hypersonic-missile/ https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/05/14/confirmed-ukraine-ly... Additionally, Iran claims that Israel did not intercept any of the hypersonic missiles they fired at Israel. NATO does not possess any hypersonic missiles. Some people might say that NATO is keeping them secret, but that makes no sense. Nations exhibit their technologies as a deterrent.
  - kornhole 2y ago
    Further explanation of how it is impossible for a Patriot missile to intercept a Kinzhal. https://sputnikglobe.com/20230510/fact-check-ukraine-didnt-shoot-down-russias-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile-1110235332.html https://sputnikglobe.com/20230510/fact-check-ukraine-didnt-s...
    - blue_pants 2y ago
      Those are not credible sources. From the theinteldrop link: "several sources within the Russian military and defense industry told the newspaper Izvestia on Saturday" From the sputnikglobe link: "Moscow-based military expert Alexey Leonkov told Sputnik"
      - kornhole 2y ago
        What makes these sources not credible in your mind? I have not observed them reporting anything incorrectly. They are citing military experts who know the technical capabilities of these weapons and defense systems. If you want to refute what they say, show how a slower Patriot missile could target and intercept a much faster mach 5 missile. It is basic physics without getting deeply into rocket science.
        fennecbutt 2y ago
        "Military experts" != engineers and physicists (usually).
    - hackerlight 2y ago
      Palmer Luckey says Russia's Kinzhal is not a hypersonic glide vehicle so it's not that hard to intercept, unlike what China can field.

jjk166 2y ago

It's worth considering that while the equipment in use in the ukraine conflict is obviously relevant, the nature of the conflict is radically different from what the US would face. Ukraine is literally on Russia's doorstep, allowing Russia to send its units in and pull them back for repairs with relatively limited logistical strain. This allows it to use massive numbers of cold war surplus assets that would not be viable anywhere else on earth. Ukraine started the war with an extremely small air force and has received only very limited support in that regard, meaning it has spent the entire war without air control. This both limits Ukraine's capacity to use tactics which rely on air support and gives Russia the ability to operate its air forces in relative safety. US doctrine is completely based around air superiority. Ukraine had an extremely limited standing army and military industrial capacity prior to the war, and has relied heavily on non-professional troops who volunteered or were conscripted after the war started and received only moderate training, and it is dependent on foriegn support for advanced arms and munitions. The US has both the strongest standing army and the most advanced military industrial complex in human history. The issues Ukraine is struggling with now - pushing into areas Russian troops have spent months fortifying while having to conserve artillery shells, holding off an unending trickle of 60 year old soviet tanks, and having to jerry-rig long range drones to attack targets in Russia - are challenges that simply wouldn't exist if the US were fighting a war. If our goal was really to get useful data that would be applicable to US conflicts, we'd be giving the Ukrainians the means to fight the way we fight.

kornhole 2y ago
I agree Ukraine never had a chance against the far superior Russian military. The reason the US and NATO did not officially send ground troops, although many of their people are on the ground, is that it would trigger full war between NATO and Russia which would go thermonuclear. If that ever happened, Russia's larger and more advanced nuclear arsenal (ballistic missiles) would give it an advantage. Their large land mass, twice that of the US, would give them a better survival chance after the fallout.
- racional 2y ago
  I agree Ukraine never had a chance against the far superior Russian military. A very weird thing to say, given Russia's humiliating defeat (in terms of the objectives it believed it would surely and painlessly achieve) in 2022.

Balgair 2y ago

It was always going to be a terrible tragedy with Ukraine. Vlad committed something much worse than a crime, he committed a mistake (to paraphrase Talleyrand). NATO+ countries aren't fighting him, they are using Ukraine as a proxy, while Vlad is fighting with his own army. NATO has been waiting nearly 80 years to attack Russia directly. They very motivated to make sure that Vlad continues making errors. As such, the longer this war takes, the better for NATO. And, unfortunately, the worse for Ukraine. I think data collection is for sure one aspect, but I think Russian casualties is the largest motivator

sangnoir 2y ago
> And, unfortunately, the worse for Ukraine In what way would having the whole of Ukraine annexed like Crimea be better for Ukraine?
- Sammi 2y ago
  Are charitable reading would be that that was not what was said. It was not said that Ukraine would be better off it it stopped fighting. Only that Ukraine will be worse off the longer the war takes.
- bllguo 2y ago
  gee what a mystery. how about no more bloodshed for starters.
  - fullspectrumdev 2y ago
    The bloodshed would not end. The Russians are hell bent on ethnic cleansing, as can be evidenced by Bucha and several other places I’ve actually been to.

attentive 2y ago

I have an impression that no modern technology is tested there but rather supplied with ready to be decommissioned 50 year old antics.

gantron 2y ago
You're mostly correct that the older tech is the bulk of what's been sent, but there have been lots of batches of newer tech that the US has delivered. [0] These newer companies (Anduril, Skydio, etc.) do it for a few reasons. Some are obvious: they get paid and their systems have a chance at influencing real-world events that the leadership & rank-and-file employees might care about personally. But from a pure product development perspective, fielding these systems is a valuable test opportunity. You've built a great drone but you're not sure how it'll perform in a GPS-denied environment with S-band radio completely unusable? Russian Electronic Warfare teams are happy to curate that environment for you. [0] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2024-01-08/white-house-turns-to-defense-tech-startups-for-help-in-ukraine https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2024-01-08...

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

Did you get the disturbing realization that Russia gets data on the materiel too?

acjohnson55 2y ago
Of course they are, but to me at least, it seems like their cost-benefit is very different from the US. I don't think the war is worth it to them just to learn more about warfare.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]