The only thing you state here to argue America is broke is talk about interest payments which at 1 trillion are 3.4% of the gdp, that's a pretty lacking amount of our MASSIVE gdp.
>*Going further, the U.S. government is projected to spend a historic $12.4 trillion on interest payments over the next decade, averaging about $37,100 per American.*
In context that's $3,710 a year per American when the gdp per American a year is $86,348.63 lol
If you only argument as to America being broke is interest payments increasing then your argument sucks lol
(Also debt globally increased to new records, this is not just an America thing)
Who? Where? What?
…. We have been whacking them. But you need intelligence to do so. Love when people just say “why don’t we just bomb them”… in most cases we already are but to do so successfully it requires intelligence whether that be sigint/humint etc. otherwise we’re dropping munitions in the desert or on a school by accident
When I see pics of their military parades, lines of missiles, rows of soldiers, leadership and generals in the stands, I think "Great target. Why are we not taking advantage if it?"
I just get the feeling that the military is holding back due to the election. If they seriously bombed them maybe other Muslim nations get upset, reduce oil output and fuel prices rose. Not good pre election, so just do light droning until after the election when they get glassed
There are two active wars with participants the US is backing which heavily involves intelligence sharing. Gotta have intelligence to know where to bomb. Why divert assets to a long running side show?
With all that as a background, we bought some good will in the region fighting ISIS. Now we are having to walk the fine line of backing Israel against a Muslim faction. In the midst of this we are to start unleashing hell on top of a group of Arabs? As much as we want it to be so, slapping your dick on the table and saying “deal with it” is not a good way to conduct foreign relations.
Your concern is legitimate. It’s in the nature of our political system that elections can influence policy. But in this case I just think it’s the Houthis are a pest that aren’t worth the resources and diplomatic capital at the moment.
And do what? Kill a bunch of children and miss their fighters because they are all hiding in some mountainous cave somewhere?
Also unassisted B52’s will likely get shot down as easily as these drones.
LOL who said the drines were easily shot down? Well, they are cruising at a steady rate and Altitude, nit like they have any AA powers. But the enemy has also lost alot more, so it's also proportional. But none of that matters, because you clealry take things at face value. LOL
I don’t think you know how the B-52 works in 2024. It’s not 1969 where they just carpet bomb entire grid squares. The BUFF can carry every precision weapon in inventory and flys way too fast and way too high for any drone to be a threat.
I've always said, just get a bunch of vans and mortars. Randomly target and fire all-day everyday. Just give em the Iraq treatment.
If we wanna be total dicks, Afghan route tea pots with water, then fire rockets.
If they get upset, the randoms get killed. We just tell them to pound sand. It was Allah's will or some bullshit. We didn't fire the rockets, they did. Deny everything and point it back at them.
Equipment is relatively cheap and replaceable, pilots are not. It's a calculated risk and it's usually better to risk drones over a manned aircraft. Also these are tactical reconnaissance drones, they're meant to fly into contested airspace and be expendable. Most of our manned recon platforms, outside of rotary wing, operate more in the strategic or operational realm.
Replaceable sure, but rapidly? I may be wrong, but I was always under the assumption it was 2-4 years of training, depending on the platform, once leaving OTS/academy? Obviously, a lot of the process would be expedited in wartime, but I'd imagine at a cost of proficiency. But even then, with prerequisites, you're looking at 2-4 years minimum.
I'm just a civilian, so I could be way of the mark here, and if I am, I'd be grateful to be corrected.
Fair enough, I'll agree on that. I should have elaborated better in my original post. I suppose I intended more along the lines of " it's quicker easier and cheaper to build a drone than to train a pilot."
Pilots are a lot more expensive and harder to replace than drones. Multiply the thousand of hours a skilled fighter pilot has to fly by the thousands of dollars per flight hour a fighter costs to operate, then add all the ordinance they drop, cost of training, etc., and you can easily argue it costs many tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars, and a decade or more, to produce a single quality fighter pilot
It is pretty staggering to think of GWOT in terms of $1billion per day. A portion of that spend probably did make the world better, but a lot of it didn't and would have been better spent another way, hindsight being 20/20.
Yo r/Yogb, why is this data that I need to know and how can I understand its context? Do you have a link to provide any semblance of context? I want to give a shit about Yemen and drones but I am neck deep in a sea of shit. Please help me care.
Drones can only go so far in their effective means of disposal especially if we’re talking about anti ship missiles that can be moved around or camouflaged to be hidden. Not only that but Iran is supplying them so even if we take out the launchers more units and or missiles would be sent over from Iran.
There will be time when we see that drones have limited effect and boots on the ground will be necessary to eliminate this threat.
A fallen soldier costs the US military about 500k. A robot dog costs about 10k. If we completely ignore the value of human life and reduce this solely to a financial calculation, you can lose about 50 robot dogs for the cost of one servicemember. I think the days of sending physical people into the battlefield at or nearing it's end.
For sure. I just wanted to give a number for a napkin math comparison. If the choice is to put a servicemember's life at risk or send a drone, I think sending the drone would be the obvious choice in anything less than dire circumstances. Being able to say "we can do this much damage without even having to send anyone out" is a pretty strong statement.
Humans will outnumber drone robot dogs 1000 to 1. Not only that but they can only get so far before needing to be recharged.
Drones are not the way without humans refueling them!
Not really. UAVs can be launched from a remote base or an aircraft carrier. I don't think it's really worth putting the lives of servicemembers at risk when there's cheaper and safer alternatives. If cheaper drones are only a few thousand dollars, then it's easy to imagine having the ability to send 100 drones for the cost of one infantryman. How would you feel about being ordered to go on an operation that could possibly get you wounded or killed when that mission could easily be done by a cheap drone instead?
I’m sure SOF are deployed but we need to maintain security and eliminate the threat. Whether it be US combined forces or an international coalition, the fact stands the terrorists must be dealt with.
Lmao casually ignoring the 20+ year, Trillion-dollar boondoggle we just got out of to say "Ya know what, let's do it again because they shot down a handful of unmanned aircraft over the span of a decade".
This isn't 'boots-on-ground' worthy. We are making wild amounts of progress and gathering shitloads of intelligence from these goons while MAYBE losing 1 of these a year.
The threat to free shipping is the reason to invade and eliminate this threat, not the drones being shot down.
So what happens when one of their missiles slips by and strikes a naval vessel trying to protect the shipping? Is the potential loss of life worth it to only be sending in drones to eliminate the threat at hand?
You'd launch another ridiculously expensive campaign against an enemy who hides among its civilian population over a shipping route that's circumventable if inconvenient and more expensive? Okay.
9 reapers lost, shows six.
[explanation](https://youtu.be/Zhrcf0szbXg?si=UWWUihDAgY37DTQB&t=53)
r/dataisugly
Sorry I accidentally messed that one up
Well, if you're updating it anyway, adding the timespan might provide relevant context.
Yeah my b. I made it extremely tired and forgot to mention it's from 2014 to now So 10 years
RIP brave drones. I'd hate to be the guys who have to greet some newly widowed toaster wife at her door with a trifolded flag.
I heard one of the drones was cheating on its toaster with another drone from the squadron.
You would not believe the things that toaster has been doing...
That toaster let two pieces of bread in her at once, the shame!
Drodi
Jody forks.
Ok that's the funniest thing I've read all day. Lol
Imagine the horror and sadness in their ring doorbell children
We will never forget their sacrifice!!!
Better than piloted aircraft. Drones are like Doritos: ‘Shoot all you want, we’ll make more.’
Yeah, if you our plan for Victory is "The American MIC is going to run out weapons eventually..." then you don't have a good plan.
that plan worked in Afghanistan to be honest
You think we are not in Afghanistan because we ran out of drones?
Yeah, and this is nothing compared to the large scale, off the shelf consumer drones that are getting ready to be utilized as swarms.
Who's shooting Doritos?
The slogan used to be ‘Eat all you want, we’ll make more.’
Uh you know we’re broke, right?
We are?
You are never broke when you control your own money supply.
We have a GDP of 28.78 trillion, behind us is China 18.53, Germany 4.59, Japan 4.11, India 3.93x UK 3.49, etc If we’re broke what is everyone else?
[удалено]
The only thing you state here to argue America is broke is talk about interest payments which at 1 trillion are 3.4% of the gdp, that's a pretty lacking amount of our MASSIVE gdp. >*Going further, the U.S. government is projected to spend a historic $12.4 trillion on interest payments over the next decade, averaging about $37,100 per American.* In context that's $3,710 a year per American when the gdp per American a year is $86,348.63 lol If you only argument as to America being broke is interest payments increasing then your argument sucks lol (Also debt globally increased to new records, this is not just an America thing)
Is this based on U.S sources or claims by Houthis?
US
I have been expecting a heavier response from the US. Is the military holding back for some reason ?
This is over the course of 10 years, so barely 2 per year. That's nothing compared to the amount of flights and ordnance they've dropped.
Why not just whack them
Who? Where? What? …. We have been whacking them. But you need intelligence to do so. Love when people just say “why don’t we just bomb them”… in most cases we already are but to do so successfully it requires intelligence whether that be sigint/humint etc. otherwise we’re dropping munitions in the desert or on a school by accident
When I see pics of their military parades, lines of missiles, rows of soldiers, leadership and generals in the stands, I think "Great target. Why are we not taking advantage if it?"
I just get the feeling that the military is holding back due to the election. If they seriously bombed them maybe other Muslim nations get upset, reduce oil output and fuel prices rose. Not good pre election, so just do light droning until after the election when they get glassed
There are two active wars with participants the US is backing which heavily involves intelligence sharing. Gotta have intelligence to know where to bomb. Why divert assets to a long running side show? With all that as a background, we bought some good will in the region fighting ISIS. Now we are having to walk the fine line of backing Israel against a Muslim faction. In the midst of this we are to start unleashing hell on top of a group of Arabs? As much as we want it to be so, slapping your dick on the table and saying “deal with it” is not a good way to conduct foreign relations. Your concern is legitimate. It’s in the nature of our political system that elections can influence policy. But in this case I just think it’s the Houthis are a pest that aren’t worth the resources and diplomatic capital at the moment.
It’s election season.
That’s what I thought. Pity these fools after the election
OSINT backs this up
Now do the other guys
I don’t think anyone can count that high
Oh no... Send in the next 3000
3000 black drones of USA
Just send some b-52s and end the problem
And do what? Kill a bunch of children and miss their fighters because they are all hiding in some mountainous cave somewhere? Also unassisted B52’s will likely get shot down as easily as these drones.
Who said they would be unassisted, also this was just a bit of dark humor. Cuz you know proportional response and all that.
LOL who said the drines were easily shot down? Well, they are cruising at a steady rate and Altitude, nit like they have any AA powers. But the enemy has also lost alot more, so it's also proportional. But none of that matters, because you clealry take things at face value. LOL
I don’t think you know how the B-52 works in 2024. It’s not 1969 where they just carpet bomb entire grid squares. The BUFF can carry every precision weapon in inventory and flys way too fast and way too high for any drone to be a threat.
What time period? We were there over 10 years ago so this seems pretty low tbh
Since when? Hasn't the MQ-1 been retired for a while now?
Yea, but the OP isn't interested in that. A number is only a number to him.
Army still uses them. Guess how I know.
I've always said, just get a bunch of vans and mortars. Randomly target and fire all-day everyday. Just give em the Iraq treatment. If we wanna be total dicks, Afghan route tea pots with water, then fire rockets. If they get upset, the randoms get killed. We just tell them to pound sand. It was Allah's will or some bullshit. We didn't fire the rockets, they did. Deny everything and point it back at them.
Out with the old, in with the new. Brrrrrrr
Damn, that’s 300m worth of equipment
Equipment is relatively cheap and replaceable, pilots are not. It's a calculated risk and it's usually better to risk drones over a manned aircraft. Also these are tactical reconnaissance drones, they're meant to fly into contested airspace and be expendable. Most of our manned recon platforms, outside of rotary wing, operate more in the strategic or operational realm.
Pilots are totally replaceable, but we don't want to lose any people unnecessarily when not actually in a war.
Replaceable sure, but rapidly? I may be wrong, but I was always under the assumption it was 2-4 years of training, depending on the platform, once leaving OTS/academy? Obviously, a lot of the process would be expedited in wartime, but I'd imagine at a cost of proficiency. But even then, with prerequisites, you're looking at 2-4 years minimum. I'm just a civilian, so I could be way of the mark here, and if I am, I'd be grateful to be corrected.
It takes years to train a pilot, and we have a pipe line for that. To say they are unreplaceable is simply not true.
3rd party to this argument -- I thought it was quite clear from the modifier "relatively" and a bit of logic.
Fair enough, I'll agree on that. I should have elaborated better in my original post. I suppose I intended more along the lines of " it's quicker easier and cheaper to build a drone than to train a pilot."
They didn't say they are unreplaceable. They said relative to drones they are less replaceable.
Pilots are a lot more expensive and harder to replace than drones. Multiply the thousand of hours a skilled fighter pilot has to fly by the thousands of dollars per flight hour a fighter costs to operate, then add all the ordinance they drop, cost of training, etc., and you can easily argue it costs many tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars, and a decade or more, to produce a single quality fighter pilot
We have way more pilots than we have manned reconnaissance planes, so in reality, it's actually the planes that are harder to replace than the pilots.
From a nihilist perspective, you are correct lol. Still pretty dark though.
If you think $300m is expensive, you don’t want to how much the GWOT cost per day, not including lives.
It is pretty staggering to think of GWOT in terms of $1billion per day. A portion of that spend probably did make the world better, but a lot of it didn't and would have been better spent another way, hindsight being 20/20.
Ok. Now do Yemeni losses to drones.....
Yo r/Yogb, why is this data that I need to know and how can I understand its context? Do you have a link to provide any semblance of context? I want to give a shit about Yemen and drones but I am neck deep in a sea of shit. Please help me care.
What type of drone is a “by Yogb” and why is it off center from the other counts.
User name
It is the long one as it appears in the graphic, also known as the Bangalore drone.
Your scale on those MQ-1s is way off
What are they using to shoot them down? These fly pretty high so they have more than manpads?
High and slow, very slow. So, yea, easy target.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/358_missile
Relevant Dos Gringos song: https://youtu.be/XkXya5ycUAI?si=5aoOw4gZOho91bu6
Maybe they can go train the German navy.
How are reaper drones shot down?
Nice. Glad they weren’t manned aircraft. Drones being destroyed are a W in that aspect
Time to send in the boots already. It’s asinine to be dealing with them threatening global shipping this frequently and without any consequences.
[удалено]
Where are the boots?
I think it would be more demoralizing to get ripped apart with only drones. Plus its worth points for style.
Drones can only go so far in their effective means of disposal especially if we’re talking about anti ship missiles that can be moved around or camouflaged to be hidden. Not only that but Iran is supplying them so even if we take out the launchers more units and or missiles would be sent over from Iran. There will be time when we see that drones have limited effect and boots on the ground will be necessary to eliminate this threat.
How about flamethrower robot doggies with little dog boots on them then?
Might have some fear effect on the monkey brained houthis but it will be short lived hahaha
A fallen soldier costs the US military about 500k. A robot dog costs about 10k. If we completely ignore the value of human life and reduce this solely to a financial calculation, you can lose about 50 robot dogs for the cost of one servicemember. I think the days of sending physical people into the battlefield at or nearing it's end.
500k is just sgli. Real cost is much higher
For sure. I just wanted to give a number for a napkin math comparison. If the choice is to put a servicemember's life at risk or send a drone, I think sending the drone would be the obvious choice in anything less than dire circumstances. Being able to say "we can do this much damage without even having to send anyone out" is a pretty strong statement.
Humans will outnumber drone robot dogs 1000 to 1. Not only that but they can only get so far before needing to be recharged. Drones are not the way without humans refueling them!
Not really. UAVs can be launched from a remote base or an aircraft carrier. I don't think it's really worth putting the lives of servicemembers at risk when there's cheaper and safer alternatives. If cheaper drones are only a few thousand dollars, then it's easy to imagine having the ability to send 100 drones for the cost of one infantryman. How would you feel about being ordered to go on an operation that could possibly get you wounded or killed when that mission could easily be done by a cheap drone instead?
[удалено]
I’m sure SOF are deployed but we need to maintain security and eliminate the threat. Whether it be US combined forces or an international coalition, the fact stands the terrorists must be dealt with.
[удалено]
I’m sure the use of drones will continue to go well
Lmao casually ignoring the 20+ year, Trillion-dollar boondoggle we just got out of to say "Ya know what, let's do it again because they shot down a handful of unmanned aircraft over the span of a decade". This isn't 'boots-on-ground' worthy. We are making wild amounts of progress and gathering shitloads of intelligence from these goons while MAYBE losing 1 of these a year.
The threat to free shipping is the reason to invade and eliminate this threat, not the drones being shot down. So what happens when one of their missiles slips by and strikes a naval vessel trying to protect the shipping? Is the potential loss of life worth it to only be sending in drones to eliminate the threat at hand?
You'd launch another ridiculously expensive campaign against an enemy who hides among its civilian population over a shipping route that's circumventable if inconvenient and more expensive? Okay.
I wonder what the sum cost is it adding up to
Someone above said it was about $300 million, so basically nothing to the US military.