I saw Striker post about this a few weeks ago on telegram, and I added it to my saved messages. I think it fits quite well with the posts I’ve been doing on fighter planes.

Okay so on the left side of the image we have some Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), commonly referred to as drones. And on the right we’ve got some actual real life motorcycle infantry.

You’ll notice that the UAV image clearly states that it’s an Artist’s Concept. It looks like some weird cross between a recon UAV and a glide bomb, and I have to say, it does not fill me with confidence when the twitter thread/article starts off in such ways.

Nevertheless I generally agree with the guys argument, and I’ll let him speak for himself.

Twitter Thread:

Cheap combat drones have completely transformed the modern battlefield. But there is a countermeasure… MOTORCYCLE INFANTRY! THREAD on how some armies may soon look like Mad Max.

Drones no longer are exclusively weapons of the first world. As

has pointed out, today much like the Spanish Civil War did in the 30s, far away clashes in places like Azerbaijan and Ethiopia, offer observers a sobering vision of how next gen warfare will be fought.

I’m not going to be snarky, but I could go the rest of my life without hearing someone say “next gen warfare.” He does include this snippet from some CSIS article.

In the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, the Azeri used Turkish and Israeli drones to dominate the skies and win. In Ethiopia last month, Middle Eastern combat drones were also credited for stopping rebels from seizing the capital.

Azerbaijan used UAV’s to dominate the ground, not the air. Nobody even pretends that these things are any good at all for tactical air superiority. It’s possible he was referring to them being used to capture Armenian Airfields, or destroy roads, starving the Armenian aircraft of fuel. That he didn’t say this makes me believe I’m being very charitable.

The value of cheap drones isn’t just shooting Hellfire missiles at people. You can now flood the skies, have excellent surveillance of enemy activity, and can direct artillery, rockets,& airstrikes at enemy positions. Now the enemy’s rear takes as much fire as the front lines.

What makes this even scarier is that no one has a truly effective countermeasure against drones. Billions are being spent worldwide, but no one knows how to reliably take these things out.

He says that “now with drones we can,” and then lists a bunch of things that were done decades ago, and better, with manned airplanes.

OV-10 Bronco.

Here’s the Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco. Sadly you couldn’t do Forward Air Observation in them. Oh wait, no actually, you totally could. And they did, constantly.

It’s a good read, if you’re curious.

Here’s an entire non-fiction book written by an American Pilot, Marshall Harrison, who did exactly that in Vietnam. OV-10’s, and their pilots, would be used in conjunction with artillery and infantry, not so much bombing, and would mark areas with smoke, coordinate fire with the artillery crews, and lay down their own 20mm or rocket suppressive fire when opportunity presented itself.

O-1 BirdDog

They succeeded older, less rugged aircraft such as the O-1 BirdDog, which is basically just a Cessna 170 with barely any modifications.

O-2 Skymaster

Here we see another airplane that had a very similar role, the O-2 Skymaster. And below we see yet another plane used in a similar role, the A-1 Skyraider.

A-1 Skyraider.

The Skyraider is a bit more of a medium bomber, being originally designed for naval strikes of surface ships, but it was used in that same Armed Air Recon/Close Air Support/Forward Air Controller role in Vietnam. They were also used for search and rescue.

The US military used to have a ton of planes that can do exactly what this twatter dude thinks we have only just now got the capability to do using UAV’s. They’re all gone now, being replaced, poorly, by the A-10, a plane that the parasitical USAF bureaucracy hates with a passion and has been trying to get rid of since before it was even put into production.

A-10 Warthog. Technically the Lightning II.

I say poorly because, while the A-10 is a great destructive airplane, with the low speed performance necessary to actually find camouflaged targets that do not wish to be found, it still consumes far too much fuel to be used puttering about coordinating artillery fire. They also use too much fuel to do constant recon patrols, or serve as a constant presence over the heads of our troops, except in the hottest areas.

Finally, the extra weight in armament the USAF bureaucracy forced the A-10 to be able to carry, an absurd 18,000 lbs of munitions, ruined much of the planes maneuverability and STOL performance. Giant 1-2,000 lbs bombs simply cannot be dropped in close support of infantry without potentially killing our own infantry, since the area destroyed by the lethal shrapnel is well within the range of expected infantry combat, to say nothing of collateral damage. Even in the naval strike role, 18,000 lbs of munitions is still absurd. That would be enough to blow up an entire aircraft carrier battlegroup with one plane. And if you were actually doing an attack you’d carry much less weight in order to be faster and more maneuverable. You’d also launch far more than one plane, of course.

But the problem for the USAF bureaucracy is that it’s really hard to make money off of just the cannon shells fired by the 30mm GAU-8 cannon. Especially since a competitive buy program was instituted that forced the price from the supplier to be close to cost. So they turned the plane into a glorified bomb truck, because they can make huge profits off of these weapons, especially the “smart” ones, since the value of “smartness,” can be made arbitrary, thus allowing prices to be divorced from costs, and putting money in the pockets of the very same corporations these stunning and brave generals will be working for immediately after retirement. 

It’s true that we aren’t forced to put 18,000 lbs of munitions on the plane every time we fly it. However, we still pay the structural reinforcement price of having the ability to carry all that weight on our wings and elsewhere. A 1,000 lbs bomb, at a 9G turn, is 9,000 lbs ripping itself off the wings. It is not a simple matter of adding a couple of twist ties or some duct tape to keep them on there. The A-10 is sluggish even when flying clean as a result. Being overweight also means it has a poorer climb rate and acceleration rate than it ought to.

The A-10 was forced to sacrifice actual performance so that the USAF And Friends could make some money off the plane. And yet, it’s still loved by the troops whose lives are actually at stake in the fighting. In fairness, a low flying, armoured plane with a fuck off cannon is going to be pretty effective regardless, but mostly it’s just because it’s the only real ground support aircraft left in the USAF inventory. No, the F-15C LARP Eagle does not count as CAS, being entirely unable to actually find things on the ground in the first place. Those planes are little more than the worlds shittiest and most expensive artillery.

OV-10 Bronco again.

So why is it that the parasitical USAF bureaucracy got rid of these planes? Simple, their necessarily rugged design makes it nearly impossible to make obscene profits off of them. You see, if you have a plane like the OV-10 Bronco, it’s pretty damn hard to justify a pricetag that’s an order of magnitude higher than the costs to build it. These planes need to be fairly small, so as to consume little fuel which is important strategically, but also just in terms of the practical aspect of operating them out of some mudstrip airbase. It’s hard to land a big plane in a big pile of mud and takeoff again. And it’s hard to get huge amounts of fuel to any random patch of grassland.

The slower ones, such as the O-1 BirdDog above, and frankly even the OV-10 Bronco, don’t go fast enough to justify retractable landing gear. The OV-10 Bronco actually does have retractable landing gear, but that’s basically North American Rockwell playing make belief. Retractable landing gear only starts to make sense around 300+ kmph, and even then only if the plane is designed to cruise everywhere. For these planes, which are slowly puttering about in an area doing recon, it makes even less sense. And since we need very strong landing gear, with large tires, in order to land roughly in unprepared areas, it makes even less sense.

Cessna 400. ~430kmph cruise speed with fixed landing gear with fairings.

Because the plane is not flying 60,000+ feet up in altitude, you can actually find things on the ground like camoflaged troops. You don’t need to add any long range sensors to LARP like you can find things, because you can just use the optical devices known as the pilots eyeballs. Adding a Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera to the plane is nice, but those are mass produced for the civilian market, and are cheap. The military ones tend to be larger, but even still, there’s a limit to the price we can invent for them.

These planes don’t need any GPS guided munitions. First, you can just aim the plane and pull the trigger, whether that trigger is attached to some .50 cals, the 30mm shells of the GAU-8, dumb rockets, or whatever else. Second, the infantry and vehicles you’re attacking don’t have any fixed GPS coordinates, so it doesn’t make any sense anyway. 

70mm rocket pod. Hold 19 dumb rockets.

In order to get the fuel economy that we need to be able to patrol an area for a long period of time we need a prop engine. For the really small recon planes, that means a piston prop, and we can probably get our engine for close to $100,000 US, possibly less. For the larger planes, that means something like a $1,000,000 turboprop. These engines are relatively cheap to buy, in part because they are small, but also because they exist en masse for the civilian sector, and it’s a lot harder for the MIC to bullshit about how they absolutely need to pay 10x cost for an engine that performs identically to whatever Lycoming or Pratt and Whitney’s turboprop division is making.

As we covered in the fuel part of this PSA, these prop engines are cheaper to buy, but multiple times cheaper to operate. Additionally, these planes don’t need such huge amounts of thrust, which makes them cheaper to operate. This one part is somewhat irrelevant from the perspective of the MIC, since it’s hard for them to profit off increased fuel costs, what with that being a commodity, but it’s worth mentioning in the overall picture.

Argentinian IA-58 Pucara’s

Since these planes are getting riddled with bullets, you simply can’t build them out of carbon fiber composites, or any other fancy material. Carbon fiber turns into dust when punctured by bullets, as opposed to metals which retain much of their structural integrity. And since they’re going to need to be patched up, you’re probably making them out of stainless steel.

A-10 Warthog riddled with either bullets or shrapnel from a fragmentation warhead.

Armed Air Recon planes, Forward Air Observers, and Close Air Support aircraft, pretty much regardless of their specialization, are going to be inherently cheap. All of these design decisions that make the planes good, also make them cheap. Cheap engines, cheap fuel use, no fancy sensors required or even useable (except cheap FLIR), cheap steel airframes, cheap munitions, fixed landing gear, a thick, easy to build straight wing. The list goes on. They are nothing more than steel airframes, prop engines, and dumb munitions. They are inherently inexpensive.

But worse than that, it’s hard for the MIC to bullshit them into being expensive. While there are some things about fighter planes, like the Carbon Fiber Composite airframes, that make the planes more expensive, they could be cheap as well. It’s just that they can bloviate about “muh technology,” and then attempt to justify a pricetag for the fighter, or any individual “tech” component that has no relationship to the manufacturing cost.

Defense Daily:

The AESA program for the F-16s may cost $1.8 billion overall, as the F-16s are also to receive upgradable software to extend F-16 service life for another 20 years and to ease F-16 operations in electronic warfare-contested environments.

While the F-16 AESA upgrade was envisioned to cost $1 million per aircraft, the decline in radar competitors has meant that the cost has ballooned per plane, according to the Teal Group.

AESA radars are nice, but like most “high tech,” stuff their pricetags are utterly divorced from their costs in a way that a piston prop, steel airframe, lightly armoured, low flying, slow flying recon/attack plane simply isn’t. There’s no point to putting an AESA radar, or any radar, on a recon plane since you can’t find things that aren’t moving on the ground with radar. An exception would be for naval recon, looking for surface ships, but in that case you want an actual AWACS, which fulfills an entirely different role.

E2 Hawkeye

It is true that the Air Force Bureaucracy has always hated providing anything for the army, because it makes these psychopathic generals feel less important. Like they’re nothing more than the bitchboys of the US Army. Which, in a real war, they actually would be.

The reason that the Army owns helicopters is because if the Air Force owned the troop transport helis they’d be bloviating constantly about how troop transport helicopters have no survivability in the “modern integrated air defense systems battlefields of the 21st century.” These are the people who pretended that the A-10 Warthog was going to explode seconds after entering Iraqi airspace before the Gulf War. Instead they flew almost 9,000 missions with just 6 losses, and 14 damaged aircraft.

However, more important is simply that they just can’t make profits off of these planes. Like I said, they’re steel airframes, prop engines, and dumb munitions, maybe with a cheap FLIR camera. It’s not like the Army bureaucracy gives a shit about the little peasants with sticks either. If they did, they’d fight for their troops to actually get AAR and CAS. But they don’t give a shit, so they don’t. Similarly, if the USAF could make tons of profits with these planes, then they’d at least tolerate them.

We saw with the A-10, where, if forced to have it, the USAF bureaucracy will insist upon loading it up with ultra high profit margin GPS guided “smart” munitions so they can extract those juicy profits from the plane and then get rewarded for their service with seven figure “consultant,” gigs with the very same corporations they made rich during their time “in service to their country.”

They’ve been trying to cancel the A-10 since its inception, and this flared up again from about 2015-2020. The massive pushback forced them to settle for an “upgrade package,” that does absolutely nothing for the plane but put money in the pockets of contractors, and doesn’t solve any fundamental issues with the plane, like the fact that it is massively overweight as a result of the USAF bureaucracy crippling it late in development. They tried the same thing with the OV-10 “Combat Dragon,” around 2013, but it didn’t stick because they couldn’t make enough money off it.

But ultimately, the army wants something in the skies to find shit for them, for the same reason that the police use helicopters to find alleged “bad guys”, and news stations use helicopters to make traffic reports. As anyone who has ever done any civilian flying or used the short range Line of Sight UAV’s on the civilian market will tell you 100-1,000 feet altitude gives you an amazing view of your surroundings. A view that rapidly diminishes in practicality as you go up further, since it’s harder to make out anything you’re looking at. If you’re looking for aircraft carriers, fine, go up to 10,000 ft. If you’re looking for camoflauged troops, fly as low and slow as possible.

View from 100 ft tower.

But our rich, oppressed bureaucrats and Military Corporations can’t make any money off these planes, for the reasons mentioned earlier. They are inherently cheap, and it’s hard to justify any “high tech,” stuff that can be bullshitted to ultra high profit margins. But what if we had some type of plane that we could call super high tech, with super high tech “sensor systems,” that provided “situational awareness,” and “ninth generation stealth surveillance,” and “ISR” and “distributed lethality,” and “swarm tactics,” and other buzzwords?


MQ-9 Reaper UAV

Take a look at the shitty plane you see above you. Imagine there was a cockpit at the front. How much do you think you could justify for this small, straight wing plane? I want you to come up with a number. For bonus points, just know that the Cessna 170 that the O1 BirdDog was based off of costs about $30,000 on the market.

If you think this is an unfair comparison, being a used plane, then fine. Below we see the Cessna 208 Caravan. A much larger turboprop airplane that is capable of transporting over 10 passengers. It has very similar takeoff and landing weight, and about 80% the engine horsepower.

Unlike a UAV, this plane needs to have a cockpit, and in fact, seating for the passengers. It also needs to have an instrument panel, with the modern computer systems being far from cheap. Its cruise speed is just few kmph slower, and neither plane is good for aerobatics. The MQ-9, being chock full of fuel and having close to glider wings, has more endurance.

It is difficult to find exact comparisons, since the MQ-9 exists as a sort of sensor-truck. Its purpose is to fly around for a long time while looking at buildings, as sort of like an in-atmosphere spy satellite. You would think that this would be an extremely cheap aircraft. It literally just needs to putter about for a long time at relatively low speeds while there is a camera attached to it.

New York Post:

It’s operated remotely by a pilot and a sensor operator and costs $64.2 million per unit, which includes four aircraft, according to its fact sheet.

16+ million per drone. All that for a camera with wings attached to it. Six. Teen. Million. Dollars. For. A. Camera. With. Wings. Attached. To. It.


The problem is the price. In 2008 they were $14 million apiece, but the Air Force’s latest budget figures shows each new Reaper costs $32 million. That makes them even more expensive than the pricey, top-end AH-64E Apache attack helicopter. It is a lot for what is, at heart, supposed to be an expendable drone.

“Hey, General Atomics, can I have some shitty little plane with a turboprop that I can attach a camera to so it just flies around for a while?” 

“No problem. That’ll be $32 million please. Thanks.”

Thirty. Two. Million. For. A. Shitty. Plane. With. A. Camera. Attached.

And make no mistake, that’s all these planes can actually do, surveillance of a building. Sure, you can load some missiles/bombs onto them, and use them as armament trucks, but you don’t need the fucking plane for that. Short range cruise missiles will do that job just fine. And even still, you could have done the exact same thing in a plane that, you know, had a guy inside. Only they couldn’t have bullshitted about “muh sensor technology,” and then charged $32 million per.

“That’ll be $32 million please.”

The field of view that is obtained from the tiny little camera, especially when zoomed in far enough to, maybe, possibly, actually see something of interest on the ground to any level of detail, is positively tiny. It’s the same problem that spy satellites have. When you zoom in 10x, you see a 10x smaller area. When you zoom in 100x, you see a 100x smaller area.

The vision that these high flying UAV’s provide is equivalent to putting up a straw to your eyeball, and closing your other eye. Go ahead and do that, then spin around a few times and see how utterly disorientated you are. Except don’t actually do that because you’ll probably hurt yourself.

The recon they give you is literally shittier than the O1 BirdDog from the 50’s, because those had guys in them who could use their eyeballs, not a glorified telescope to see jack squat from 60,000 ft up. Even if they flew them low to the ground, what would be the point? There’s just the one camera on the bottom of the plane. So sure, you could zoom out and see more, but still quite a bit less than a guy being able to look in arbitrary directions with his head and neck. The only way to give truly comparable image quality would be if you installed a whole bunch of cameras at every angle around the plane.

Sort of like the above, except with high quality cameras. 

Except the cameras would all need to have infinite depth of field, or you’ll get a situation like this where it’s not focused on the right things.

Can you see the camoflauged troops in the background? Trick question, because there aren’t any. But if there were some then no, you would most definitely not be able to see them.

And good luck if you’re relying on the cameras autofocus to pick up on camoflauged troops, or other secretive items that don’t want to be seen. There is literally no way it can do this.

Even if you got the best cameras in the entire world, and even if the turbulence in the air didn’t make them shaky beyond usability, and even if they had infinitely deep depth of fields, and magically autofocused on the exact right areas, somehow, and even if other problems I didn’t even think of were solved, you’d still need the operator in the cuck shed halfway around the world to be surrounded with curved monitors that wrap around him just like a cockpit. And you’d need to be broadcasting ultra high resolution imagery from all these cameras at the same time, all relayed back to cuck command with satellites. Satellites that the MIC claims can be blown up with the anti-Satellite missiles multiple countries have.



Now I’m not going to go ahead and say “look, we’ve got anti-satellite missiles, you can’t use satellites in WW3.” For all I know, these basically don’t work at all, and the US, Russia, China, and India are just full of shit when they claim otherwise. But I mean, all four countries have made at least one successful shot against their own satellites with these missiles, and it’s not exactly a civilizational achievement on par with the moon landing to hit a satellite with a missile.


  1. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles which require satellites to communicate with are the bleeding edge of the future of warfare.
  2. We’ve got these missiles that make blowing up satellites as easy as pressing a button. So I mean anything requiring satellites is junk in WW3.

I can’t tell you which is bullshit, although I lean towards the former. But even if it were true that we could use UAV’s, what would be the point? Our military is not limited by meatbags, but by fuel.

Look, having some pilots die is a tragedy. Losing a nuclear war is a bigger tragedy. If we are using a plane like the MQ-9 Reaper, with its 4,000 lbs of onboard fuel, we better be getting our fuels worth out of that thing because that’s what actually limits our military. It might sound cruel, but it’s not like the infantry they’re supporting are invincible either. The purpose of the military is not to have people not die in the military, the purpose is to win wars. 

Although I’ve discussed the fragility of AC’s before…

For an extreme example, let’s pretend we’ve got fighter planes defending an attack against an aircraft carriers. Then some dipshit replaces our manned fighters, which are good, with unmanned fighters, which gargle balls. If our manned fighters could have repelled the attack, at the cost of three pilots lives, versus the drones utterly failing, but not having any pilots die by definition, that doesn’t really do us any good if our aircraft carrier is now sinking to the bottom of the ocean, now does it?


Which brings us to the second “benefit,” of UAV’s. Because nobody can die in them, our MIC can justify bullshit foreign interventions on behalf of Globo Homo Schlomo. One of the things that gets the goy-peasants jimmies rustled the hardest is when we have soldiers coming home in boxes. With UAV’s, that can’t happen. So it’s all just pure profit with much less political downside.

Pictured: Politically undesirable event.

In a real war, per plane/fuel efficacy is what we actually care about. In bullshit, unpopular wars, just not having pilots die is what they care about. What they’re trying to optimize is minimizing political fallout back home. What I’m trying to maximize is the ability for the military to actually win wars. These are two very different things.


But wait, I have a solution to the issues with UAV’s. This One Weird Trick that makes them absolutely amazing. You see, one of the problems with them is how little you can see with their camera, as mentioned earlier. And don’t just take my word for it.

Popular Mechanics:

Sensor operators here speak of 4-hour, wrist-fatiguing stretches spent aiming a UAV’s onboard infrared camera at a single vehicle around Afghanistan or Iraq. Spotting roadside bombs and identifying bombmakers are other roles well-suited to a UAV’s “persistent stare.”

But what if I told you that we could replace the horrible field of view of the sensor package on these UAV’s. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Well, we have just the thing. We have these awesome new sensors developed in secret by Lockheed Martin Skunkworks. These are dual redundant, stealth, overlapping FOV electromagnetic optical imaging devices that can even do depth perception. These things are absolutely amazing. Unlike radar, they can image what you’re looking at. Unlike infrared, the part of the electromagnetic spectrum they look for doesn’t get easily absorbed by the atmosphere. Since they’re passive, not sending out any active signal, they’re impossible to detect, and impossible to jam.

The colloquial term for them is “eyeballs,” and most people have some. But wait, these things are attached to a complicated gymbal system that allows us to see in a true spherical Field of View. This gymbal system is amazing. It allows us to control the sensor package in roll, yaw, and pitch.

Top secret high tech blueprints leaked.

The colloquial term for this is “your neck.” Although the entire bio-mechanical system involves this thing we believe to be called “the human musculo-skeletal system.” It’s all very high tech and amazing. It’s just so amazing. You can see with this baby just as well as if you were actually there in the plane!

Having takeoff and landing crews stationed closer to the front line avoids the 2-second delay associated with controlling them via satellite from halfway around the world.

GPS satellite, but you get it.

Another one of the problems they have is the satellites they need to communicate with. These can be jammed or potentially blown up, and even in the best case scenarios force 2 second latencies between operator and aircraft. But we have this amazing new piece of tech that doesn’t just cut the latency by 10%, or even 50%, but down to zero. Literally zero nanoseconds of latency between the operators perception, reaction, and implementation of said reaction on the aircraft.

This is something called a cockpit. What you see before you is called a “replicant.” This is a creature that, for all intents and purposes, is just like a human being. But trust me, it’s not actually one, it just acts entirely like one. It’s really a robot.

These replicants might not be hyper intelligent, but they’re as smart as the typical human, sometimes smarter, and can intelligently work with ground forces, making sense of complicated battlezones using their 720* Dual Redundant Stealth Electromagnetic Optical Imaging Depth Perceiving sensor package that goes by the acronym E.Y.E.B.A.L.L.S. to those in the know. This provides them with the excellent Situational Awareness that is necessary to survive in seventh generation warfare.

Now you might be saying.

Isn’t that just a guy in a plane. 

Absolutely not. The idea that the best way to improve unmanned planes would be to make them manned is absurd. Instead we make them higher tech by putting in humanlike robots with the E.Y.E.B.A.L.L.S. sensor package system, with great SA and an advanced artificial intelligence that can accurately replicate human intellect. It’s a proven, robust solution. 

It really is amazing what a difference a little marketing makes, isn’t it? Take the above cruise missile. I mean it’s good, right? It’s basically a dumb airplane that flies to a target and explodes. But what if, and hear me out, we instead gave it bigger wings so it was more maneuverable. Then we gave it a cannon, so that instead of flying to the target and exploding it could fly around and fire cannon shells at everything in the area with great precision. And what if we gave it our artificial intelligence replicant, so it was just as smart as a human being. And then we gave it a cockpit, so it could make use of the dual redundant depth perceiving stealth EM Optical Imaging True Spherical FOV devices that all of our replicants have?

And then what if we called it, like, the A-10 Warthog. Wouldn’t that be a cool thing that doesn’t currently exist?

Cruise missiles are great and have their purpose, at least assuming that the GPS satellites they rely on are not getting taken down. They are basically the only planes that shouldn’t have people inside of them. Other than that, an unmanned plane is a broken plane, and you should be putting guys in your planes all the time. It’s a really great piece of technology, the whole “put a dude in there,” tech. According to many, it is absolutely OP.

It’s half disgusting and half hilarious that with the rise of money-printing UAV’s the parasitical military industrial complex is re-inventing shit that existed at least as far back as WW2. Imagine you want to do an attack on something like an aircraft carrier. You’d send hundreds of planes right? Well you see that’s just a silly relic of old fashioned third generation warfare you luddite. It’s just not –

What if those planes didn’t have guys in them?

Oh my god! Why you’re a military genius using “swarm tactics,” and “distributed lethality.” There’s absolutely no way for our CIWS or paltry fighter plane sorties to deal with that amount of planes in the sky, each of them armed with missiles. I mean we just physically don’t have enough fighters, enough CIWS shells, enough SAMs to deal with that level –

What if the planes did have guys in them?

Absolute garbage. That’s never going to work. Just such a disgusting rel-

What if the planes had guys in them, but then they ejected over the sea, and at that point the planes flew with remote control.

Fuck me you’re a military genius. If the planes have guys in them, we magically have the numbers to (somehow) stop an attack on our AC’s with hundreds of small prop planes. But if those guys eject, the planes magically become like 1,000x more lethal and harder to hit for literally no reason at all, even if their individual performance is objectively worse.

Look, these people are just full of shit. The reason they’re pushing UAV’s, and not just rugged, simple, cheap, prop driven manned aircraft that are better in every single way that matters, is because UAV’s make them a ton of money, and lead to less political fallout since no pilots can die in them. That’s it. The only reason these twatter dipshits are bloviating about how “drones use swarm tactics to flood the skies and blah blah,” is because our parasitical air force bureaucracies have stolen this ability from us because that didn’t put the maximum dollar signs in their pockets. 

You can “flood the skies,” with a shitty MQ-9 Reaper drone for 4,000 lbs of fuel. Or, for less fuel, you can “flood the skies,” with OV-10 Bronco’s that are actually fucking great at finding and destroying things in conjunction with artillery and infantry. The fact that the Azerbaijanis could get value with easily shot down UAV’s, that weren’t even shot down, just shows how easily they could have accomplished this with manned aircraft that were actually good.

If you were a soldier, would you rather have 10 shitty MQ-9 Reaper UAVs flying 60,000 ft overhead, not able to find shit, and easily blown up by your SAMs, or 10 A-10 warthogs flown 100-1,000 ft overhead, ready to pounce on you the second you show yourself?

It’s really not that complicated. Put a fucking guy in the plane.

We’ll get to the Motorcycle Infantry post next. Also known as “Infantry Mobility is good. Who knew?”

Pictured: Actually useful drone/UAV.

NOTE: None of the above criticism of UAVs applies to line of sight UAVs, like Quadcopters. These do not suffer from satellite lag, or rely on satellites at all. They are also truly expendable, very cheap, and fly very low to the ground, giving them decent vision. The Russians use these things for Artillery Spotting, essentially forward air control, and there’s no question that they do in fact have some small niche role here and there. It’s the long range UAVs that are the LARPers.

You may also like


  1. drones were more significant in the Arm/Az war because both sides airforces were neutralized by each other’s anti-air systems. So the only thing that were operating in the air were Az’s drones. Az used drones that were more efficient than our MQ-9s because they were cheaper, still functional, and they had a lot of them. They were used tactically and not operationally or strategically as our drones are used. I agree that drones could be nothing burgers and that there are a lot of problems with them. In order for that to be true, soldiers at the tactical level (squad/platoon) would need to be able to counter drones.

    1. The problem is that “neutralized,” doesn’t mean what it meant in WW2, or even Korea. Hell, even Vietnam. The US lost 11,000+ aircraft in Vietnam. If they lost literally 1% of that in a modern war they’d stop flying at all. Again, it sounds incredibly cruel, and no one is a bigger anti-war activist than me, but having 11,000 pilots die is actually not that big of a deal in a serious, justifiable war.

      The numbers of aircraft lost in Armenia-Azerbaijan are tiny. According to Wikipedia (I know), the Azerbaijanis lost just 41 manned aircraft, possibly many on the ground, and about 260 UAVs. However, those numbers are claimed by the Armenians, so assume much lower.

      If we are demanding perfect survivability, than we can just skip the whole having a military part. If not, it’s going to take a whole lot more losses than that to neutralize our air power.

  2. Keep up the good work man, these are best articles I’ve read in a long time!

    1. Thank you kind sir.

  3. After white secession, you should be named Minister of Defence!

  4. Good articles. These topics have been the focus of various conversations of mine over the years. It really is all very apparent and shouldn’t surprise anybody that the military industrial complex is also just another fake and gay grift.

  5. This has to be parody but on the off chance it isn’t. If you wanted cheap shit cas to vaporize goat-negros that’s fine, but the idea that mark1 eyeball is able to distinguish targets better than a sensor suite is just ridiculous. At least demand a ton of thermal imaging systems if you really want to find those muds hiding in cover.

    Also this applies to all the articles the current precision guided weapons are cheaper per pound of ammunition landed on target than unguided munitions. As fun as it is to spam those rocket pods or rain a half ton of DU on somebody its a lot of flash for less result and is actually a little more expensive.

    Also don’t inflate the burn rates of fuel from 6,000-8,000lbs/hr to 25,000lbs/hr it gives the game away. And as a petroleum geologist I’ll point out that we actually do have thousands of refineries, they’re called cracking plants and aren’t officially counted for obvious reasons, namely the EPA. They produce the majority of butane and propane but also produce some octane. Small corporations(<100 employees) in fact produce the majority of oil and natural gas products in the US. And most of the wells producing less than 40 barrels a day are wells that date back to the 50s or earlier. These wells were never hydrofactured and and most were never even shot with tucker torpedos and thus produce very slowly. In Mckean Co PA there are wells that were drilled by drop-tool in 1889 which still produce about a barrel a day. When you connect thousands of them to gathering lines you get a decent return for no upkeep, investment, or pumping. Most of these wells are un platted and simply counted as a legacy field since they are just holes we shove a casing into.

    So that's why numbers regarding oil production look so strange.

    1. Be me. Go into detail explaining why “muh sensor suite,” is a meme. Be this guy. “But muh sensor suite.”

      Be me. Go into detail calculating fuel burn rates of modern jet fighters. Be this guy. “But it actually be 6,000-8,000 lbs/hr bro. Source: trust me.”

      It’s nice to know that “precision guided munitions,” are actually cheaper. No source is necessary for that claim, nor does one need to explain how exactly we’re using GPS coordinates on camouflaged soldiers running around in random areas. Same goes for infrared tracking if we’re using that.

      As for the cracking facilities, I’m reading that the US has less than 30 of these. So you tell me that the US has thousands, but other sources list less than 30. If it’s true that there are secretly thousands of refineries in the US that would certainly change quite a bit in terms of military strategy, but I’ll wait on a source.

  6. I’ve got some relevant sauces.
    Some results for 30mm penetration with DU penetrators, I have to say that .50 or even .20 cannot cut it these days a general purpose cannon because especially for a loitering plane its hard to tell what you might be facing. This is also a test of potential rotary cannon accuracy. Also remember than unlike precision guided weapons you can’t fly over and let the munition make its way to the target you have line up and release the munition, which limits your flight paths and makes it easier to interdict you. A disposable plane is fine and I don’t value human life, but if the plane never kills the enemy that the troops wanted dead because it was interdicted in some manner it eliminates the support aspect of close air support.

    Desert Storm analysis of accuracy(meters deviation), lbs of ordinance on target per lb fired, and number of confirmed kills via observation of wreckage and what killed them including blue on blue.

    Relative F-117 hits with guided munitions, dismiss the GPS data because those were static targets previously observed. The use of laser guided ordinance against armored vehicles is more relevant when compared to the autocannon tests cited before.

    All that said you could put glide bombs, laser designators, thermal imagers, ect on cheap disposable prop planes just as readily as on a jet. Sure they would be lost at a higher rate but it would simply be the extension of combined arms into the aerial theater, with the prop planes the equivalent of infantry and more expensive large jets the equivalent of an IFV. These things can compliment each other. I should be noted loses wouldn’t be as high as might be estimated because something like 80% of the air losses in ‘Nam were helicopters and the US helicopter doctrine was very aggressive at the time and put the helicopters at extreme risk. And without blacks absorbing a trillion bucks every year, spics another trillion, and jews malinvesting or outright stealing who knows how many you could easily allocate the resources to build an airforce of 1,000 high performance jets and 10,000 prop aircraft. And indeed even the Air Force for all its bullshit concurs with you on many points just look at the OA-X project. Not the reliance on the mark-1 eyeball though; that’s stupid and you should be ashamed for thinking it was smart.

    Remember though CAS results are not dictated by the means, the means are there to get the results. At one time CAS necessitated a maneuverable persistent low flying aircraft. But if a higher flying aircraft which can’t be shot at by half as many weapons due to his altitude and speed can deliver munitions on target with more accuracy and expedience than an aircraft which is cheaper per would flow armed with cheaper but less effective munitions then the seemingly more expensive aircraft might end up costing less money because it expended less fuel even though it guzzled what it did expend at a high rate and used few but more individually expensive munitions. And if it carries a more diverse selection of munitions it could choose the appropriate one for the job. And if you do need to splat troop formations there are always cluster bombs.

    You’d need testing far more extensive than even the case studies I cited to get a really good assessment. And of course if all negros, tacos, and hebrews suddenly evaporated for some reason that would be affordable because nearly anything would be. Then you could periodically reproduce the test to see if new innovations necessitated a change in doctrine. And you could invade and prey upon the rest of the world in actual genocidal campaigns to seize territory which would itself provide lots of data. And before you complain, I know that national socialists aren’t genocidal which is why I will never be one.

    >nor does one need to explain how exactly we’re using GPS coordinates on camouflaged soldiers running around in random areas.
    Even shit like the F-111 could designate their own targets back in 1991 via laser but now simply by direct plane to missile transmission extrapolated from sensor data. If you can see it on a thermal imager you can hit it. Also this “zooming in shit” you’re obsessed doesn’t apply to modern imaging systems whether on satellites or on planes because they don’t have a focusing length. They are using photo receptors for resolution, they are taking a picture of the entire field of the aperture at all times, only your screen is “zooming in”. Also as a geologist I can tell you that we have satellites which can see through clouds both microwave and radar. And the radar satellites can actually resolve though up to five feet of unconsolidated soil, or differentiate between a roadway, a tent, and unturned ground. So camo netting doesn’t actually work depending on what is observing you, better than nothing though. The real limitation in satellite observation is that fact that they fly around and can only observe for a very limited window of time before their angle of observation interferes via atmosphere backscatter, regardless of whether or the wavelength of the photons they are utilizing. Except for microwaves that really is only useful for static targets because of necessary saturation you need for decent resolution, sees right through camo net though. You’d need on unreasonable number of satellites for actual coverage and then an army of men to collate that information in anything approaching real time even with mechanical assistance. Mark-1 eyeball is shit, shit. There is talk of aerial camo similar to the thermal blankets(the foil kind) used by wild fire teams but I haven’t seen it tested.

    The thing that undermines this is that Chinks and Ruskies would have had all the reason in the world to upset this paradigm which you see as constructed by the American MIC. Especially with the Chinks having such trouble sourcing domestic jet engines of sufficient performance to exceed imports you’d think they’d jump at the chance for cheap missile buses that could have been made in the 1950s, minus the modern radars. I mean everybody is corrupt but that doesn’t mean nobody would want a material advantage if it was possible.

    And with this concern about strategic nuclear weapons damaging runways, beyond the fact that rapid repair is possible, the US has 13,513 commercial airports most with at least 3 runways capable of supporting these large aircraft. Now of course you’d need to get the aircraft to a serviceable runway, but I’m not sure how much more robust an air infrastructure can be than the one which is currently available with more square feet of high quality runway than the rest of the world combined by a factor of 3.

    Remember the Iranians were able to mobilize the F-14s they had off of rapidly repaired runways which the Iraqis had bombed to shit only 72 hours earlier, and then defeat the Iraqis in the air who outnumbered them 5:1 in most sorties due to the difference in force disposition. That doesn’t invalidate the use of large numbers of lower cost aircraft in a coordinated strike because the Iraqi forces lacked missiles and radar observation of similar quality to the Iraqis, which is a given in the force disposition you’d advocate.

    And this is all looking at great powers which are not on a war footing and have no reason to anticipate and immediate strategic thermonuclear exchange, one would assume in a world without jews to complicate everything that powers in a state of open hostility would begin digging cheap fortifications for their airforces. Then shifting their airfleet around those fortifications, necessitating the allocation of a nuclear weapon to each in order to neutralize them even if they were unoccupied at the moment of the attack. Same concept as those ICBM and bomber rotation systems used in the cold war. This all results on ballooning costs, mostly for the attacking power but also for the defender. Which is why nobody is doing it right now.

    You’re assessments aren’t dumb in general I just disagree with most of them. Except the “no sensors” which I won’t let you live down, that was stupid and you should feel stupid. And of course there is a counter for everything so who knows what doctrine might be cooked up to countermand another so nobody can really say for certain until it is tried.

    > but I’ll wait on a source(on cracking plants)
    You ain’t gonna get it because it doesn’t exist except as inside baseball. Most of them are very small operations the individual companies run at their gathering lines, often several per company. Any large modern oil tank usually cracks out some butane simply via pressure differentials since it is so easy to do. Because these systems are so low volume they aren’t considered to be anything officially. But the only thing you need to crack is a series of pressure chambers in the proper sequence and distillation columns to precipitate the individual liquids the same way you would ethanol for moonshine. Indeed many gas distributers in PA, not even oil companies proper but where you go to fill out gas tanks, have a precipitation column which takes the remaining butane and propane out of the gas they are given, which they can then sell at a higher price per cubic foot. That’s what those tall cylinders you often see are for, and the more raw the gas provided to the distributer is the more often you see them.

    You could use these to distill octane, but because of the differences in vaporization pressure you’d then be unable to distill of of the lighter liquids. Essentially what used to be considered refinery work in the 1960s is just standard practice today. That said for mass mobilization this is not an efficient system since they are of low capacity and distributed with no infrastructure to get petroleum or natural gas from other sources to them. You’ve have to haul it in which outside of an emergency is not going to happen. And you’d need somebody in the government who isn’t retarded to know it was possible in the first place. One more reason jews and darkies gotta go.

    1. To our resident “Genocidal Geologist.” First of all, if you include links in your comment I need to manually fish it out of the trash.

      “Also this “zooming in shit” you’re obsessed doesn’t apply to modern imaging systems whether on satellites or on planes because they don’t have a focusing length. They are using photo receptors for resolution, they are taking a picture of the entire field of the aperture at all times, only your screen is “zooming in”.

      “Using photo receptors for resolution,” is a bunch of gibberish that doesn’t mean anything in particular. “The entire field of the aperture,” could be more easily written as “the field of view.” Moreover, satellites are not magical cameras with infinite resolution. There are serious size and physics of light restrictions that aren’t overcome by you “zooming in your screen.” Unless there is a lens zooming in, you’re just getting the horrible digital zoom that everyone is familiar with on their shitty phone cameras.

      “Also as a geologist I can tell you that we have satellites which can see through clouds both microwave and radar. And the radar satellites can actually resolve though up to five feet of unconsolidated soil, or differentiate between a roadway, a tent, and unturned ground. So camo netting doesn’t actually work depending on what is observing you, better than nothing though.”

      Infrared and visual light is obstructed by clouds, so there is no magical way for those satellites to pierce through cloud and dirt and flesh like the Eye of Sauron. But that last point is actually quite interesting. Hiding a building from SAR satellites could well be more difficult than I had previously believed. Nevertheless, you can easily build dummy buildings, hide them all with camo netting, and let your enemy waste their time and energy. I also find it dubious the assertation that simple tricks to fool SAR satellites cannot be thought up and implemented, considering their obvious limitations.

      For example, water is often missing in radar satellite imagery, due to the lack of diffusion. I’m extremely skeptical that simple and easy tricks cannot be created to fool these satellites as well.

      “That said for mass mobilization this is not an efficient system since they are of low capacity and distributed with no infrastructure to get petroleum or natural gas from other sources to them. You’ve have to haul it in which outside of an emergency is not going to happen. And you’d need somebody in the government who isn’t retarded to know it was possible in the first place.”

      So, what’s the point then? You still haven’t said what percentage of fuel we could get through these secret cracking plants, and you admit that this would be a horrible system for mass mobilization specifically because they are low capacity and there’s no serious infrastructure supporting them. So… yes, my point stands that you can press a few buttons, and totally destroy US refineries with ICBM’s.

  7. […] shoved this into my face and I felt the need to cover it. They start out by pointing out that, contrary to what retards on the internet think, UAVs are easy to […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Military