If I remember correctly from my reading (its been years), aren't something like 2/3 of all recorded aerial kills due to one side simply surprising the other?

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 02:37 pm: Edit

The Drone War Transformation
March 4, 2026: The war in Ukraine has led to radical changes in the way ground combat is conducted and experienced. There is no longer a conventional combat zone with a front line and large numbers of soldiers moving about. Domes keep the battlefield under constant surveillance. If a target is spotted, a nearby attack drone either drops an explosive or crashes into the target and explodes. Videos and still photos of this captured by the drones produces horrific images of the last moments of a soldiers life.
A battlefield where each side can see everything all the time changes the way troops move about and survive in a 30 kilometer deep zone where both sides’ drone operators are covered with nets to prevent drone attack. Troops move around in small groups at night wearing cloaks that conceal their shape and body heat. Moving a hundred meters this way is exhausting but survivable. Soldiers use drones and sometimes themselves as bait to get the enemy to reveal what they are going to do. You set up traps in these situations and are ready to have your drones attack enemy soldiers who got sloppy or just unlucky.
Even developing and building drones required imagination and unique skills. Ukrainian drone proliferation began when many individual Ukrainians, or small teams of civilians, designed and built drones. The drones served as potential candidates for widespread use and mass production. This proliferation of designers and manufacturers led to rapid evolution of drone capabilities and uses. Those who could not keep up were less successful in combat and suffered higher losses. Each month nearly 400,000 drones are built in Ukrainian factories or home workshops. Most of these workshops are informal affairs, located in spare room, garages, barns, empty industrial space or anyplace protected from the weather and aerial surveillance. Russia will hit any Ukrainian drone manufacturing sites they identify.
One result of the Ukraine War was the emergence of inexpensive drones as a decisive weapon as well as a reconnaissance and surveillance system. In 2023, a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainians were building their own drones, often at home or scattered workshops. By late 2024 Ukrainians were producing over 15o,000 drones a month. In 2025 Ukraine produced nearly 5 million drones and expect to produce three or four times as many in 2026. By purchasing components in bulk, thousands of Ukrainian men and women are building these drones for the armed forces or for someone they know in the military. Troops at the front also build and modify drones to fit their immediate situations. For the soldiers, designing better drones is often a matter of life or death.
This competitiveness led to First Person View/FPV drones as well as drones guided via Fiber Optic cable Guidance or FOG. Electronic jamming was useless against the FOG drones. The only limitation was the length of the cable. This meant the operator had to be at one end of the kilometers-long cable. Operators could be further away if there was time lay another kilometer or two of cable further to the rear. Ukrainian drone operators often worked in drone workshops before entering the military and were accustomed to upgrading drone operator equipment while in the combat zone. Any successful innovations were made known to workshop operators throughout Ukraine.
This is how the Ukrainians maintain a lead over the Russians in drone technology and production. The Russian government discourages, or even outlaws, individuals building drones and centralizes drone production. This gives the Ukrainians an edge in drone quantity and quality. The Ukrainians are defending their homeland and Russia is having an increasingly difficult time justifying continued fighting and over a million Russians killed or disabled in Ukraine.
NATO countries are trying to adopt drone technology and use for their own armed forces. Ukraine has received nearly $300 billion in military and economic assistance from NATO countries and shares their drone experience and technology with their benefactors. Drones have revolutionized warfare and are causing over 80 percent of casualties in Ukraine. The Ukraine War is a battle between industrialized countries employing modern weapons. It is the war of the future that has become what all armed forces in the world must adopt to remain competitive.
Even before the Ukraine War, drones were being used in irregular warfare in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa. Drug gangs have used drones to smuggle drugs into the United States or a prison to aid in an escape attempt. Drones are everywhere, despite laws in some countries restricting or prohibiting their use.

FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Jessica, it depends on who is doing the calling. The New York Times will call a drone kill a dogfight. You, Alan, and I would call it a "cheap kill."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Can anyone think of a sub sinking a warship since Belgrano? or sinking anything? Not counting Tom Clancy novels.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Didn’t North Korea use a midget sub to sink a South Korean Corvette like in 2010?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 02:48 pm: Edit

I believe you are right.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 03:02 pm: Edit

From Wikipedia- "March 26, 2010: A Republic of Korea Navy vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.[49][50] North Korea denied involvement.[51] The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker."

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 03:07 pm: Edit

From Wikipedia-

"The Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano was sunk on May 2, 1982, by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror during the Falklands War."

"INS Khukri was a Type 14 (Blackwood-class) frigate of the Indian Navy. She was a part of the 14th Frigate Squadron, a task force that formed part of the Western Fleet. The squadron consisted of the three frigates – INS Khukri, INS Kirpan and INS Kuthar.[3] She was sunk off the coast of Diu, Gujarat, India by the Pakistan Navy Daphné-class submarine Hangor on 9 December 1971 during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. She was the first warship sunk in action by a submarine since World War II and is the post-independence Indian Navy's only warship to have been lost in war.[2][4]"

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Can't argue about Spain,
they did sit out 40-45 fighting
even after all the support Hitler
gave them during the Civil War....

Seems to be the trend for them....

Current joke going around, Israeli Prime Minister
asked France to join the was, so they could
instruct the Iranians on how to surrender....

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Iran is not going to offer a surrender due to air attacks, and we're not going to put boots on the ground.

If someone internal overthrows the current government, the new government might well ask for a formal cease-fire or peace deal, but even a new revolutionary government would be very unlikely to actually surrender.

But I doubt that 4-6 weeks of bombing, or whatever we're going to commit to, will force a change of government, the Revolutionary Guards aren't going to let someone else take over and ruin their cushy jobs and maybe charge them with a bunch of crimes unless forced out at gunpoint, we're not likely to wipe the guards from the air, and I'm not hearing about anyone trying the forced out at gunpoint route internally.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Steve: the drones are quickly getting more advanced; there may come a day - a lot sooner than we'd like - when that kill isn't so cheap.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Iran is in a fresh water shortage that, if not fixed, could have catastrophic consequences.

People could face starvation, electricity shortages, even loss of internet services, but the human body can’t survive without water.

Three days.

They might get by with extreme rationing, and draconian measures, but any additional loss of water services will not be fixed unless the Government changes water policy.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Iran is not going to offer a surrender due to air attacks, and we're not going to put boots on the ground.

Apparently, the Kurds in Iran are the boots on the ground for us....
Seems they have a force moving toward Tehran already....
How big a force they manage to gather as they move South, might or might not matter...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Kurds verses Iranians is not a new matchup.

Kurds have been fighting Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran for many years.

I imagine all Trump had to say was (something along the lines) you want a home land? Defeat The Iranians and take what you want…

It will be interesting to see how Turkey, Iraq and Syria respond.

Well, may be not Syria.

They went for help from the Russians, and Putin left them in worse shape than when they started.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 04, 2026 - 10:09 pm: Edit

I think Iraq should be broken up, with the top 1/3 going to Kurdistan, the center to Jordan, and the south to Iran.

I am going to make a comment on politics, rather than a political comment. The Dems say "Trump has no plan." Being a soldier, I think this is nonsense. Trump was handed a plan to win the war by the Pentagon, who are fully capable of running a six-week war against a third tier enemy. Trump take note, get this thing over with in six weeks.

But it occurs to me that what the Dems really mean (they should take note: be more clear!) is "no plan for Iran after the Ayatollah government collapses and some new government takes power." This is fair, and scary. Trump wants to avoid nation building, but leaving Iran to stew in its own juice and boil its own pot may not produce a palatable result.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 02:22 am: Edit

Trump screwed the Kurds once what would be their thoughts if they did succeed.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 02:46 am: Edit

Svc, the Ju88's fighting over the bay of Biscay was the day fighter "c" version with a solid nose and forward armament of three 20mm cannons three 7.92m mgs. But maybe you knew that already

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 03:53 am: Edit

"By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 02:22 am: Edit

Trump screwed the Kurds once what would be their thoughts if they did succeed."

Is a really good point - the Kurds was told to 'rise and rebel' and the 'West' stepped away from supporing them...

Alas for the Kurds - Turkey probably is the key to it all - they don't want a new Kurdistan - and being NATO members (and so supported by the West), what they say goes?

I don't think the West would care if new Kurdistan was across Iran, Iraq and Syria - but why would the Kurds only want 3/4's of a nation?

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 07:46 am: Edit

Regarding the F-35 kill, I understand that the 2 Iranian FENCER aircraft shot down were claimed by a Typhoon fighter using Meteor missiles. No idea which one was first (or even how accurate the claims are).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 08:11 am: Edit

The F35 kill is confirmed by video.

I have no doubt that the SU24 Fencer kills ar good.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 09:31 am: Edit

I know an RAF Lockheed Hudson shot down a Fw-200 Condor while it was attacking a convoy in July of '41. Considering that the armament of the Hudson was just four .303 Brownings (two in the nose, two in the dorsal turret), that was quite an accomplishment.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 10:04 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Iran is not going to offer a surrender due to air attacks, and we're not going to put boots on the ground.

---

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Ted, absence of details is telling; the build-up for an invasion can't be hidden. Activation of units, building and expanding bases, transporting entire brigades and the massive logistics chain for an invasion is quite noticeable.
I recall SPP saying that at the time of the invasion of Iraq he could correctly predict when it would happen. (He knew how long it would take to move units from point A to B from his career as captain in the army.). It was something like four or Six months.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 12:52 pm: Edit

The news media is obsessed with numbers of troops without a clue what troops do. Those 50,000 are base and naval personnel and not combat troops. To invade Iran would take a lot more, maybe a quarter million. Actually for an invasion like France in 40 or 44 more than that. A quarter million would be enough if there was no opposition. To do a snap invasion for a symbolic occupation and victory parade the only thing you could do in a hurry would the the one battalion of the 82nd Airborne that is on alert and the one battalion of Marines on boats, maybe 2000. Another ten days you could add the most alert battalion of rangers.

(A brigade or division in garrison would normally have about 1/3 of the troops more or less ready to fight, another 1/3 just absorbed a bunch of replacements and is training up, and another 1/3 is nowhere near ready to fight as they are on vacation or attending special training schools or doing the paperwork to retire or busy tearing down equipment to do major overhauls. This is when you replace tank engines, tracks, and gun barrels if they need it. During Gulf War 91 the two divisions from Germany each left one of their brigades behind and borrowed the active brigade from a different division. )

Give us two weeks (that everyone would notice) and you could scrape up a whole brigade of paratroopers, another battalion or two of Marines with some kind of brigade HQ, and maybe two Ranger battalions. You’re pushing 12,000 troops then.

To get any kind of field force you would need three or four divisions. That would take maybe four months, more likely six. Let’s not even discuss just how welcome they would be. It would take Prince Pahlavi a year to recruit and train a division of expats, assuming the US government would supply a training facility and weapons, which they would not.

NATO has what amounts to a polyglot division of ready to go troops, but moving them to Iran would take months, and frankly that ain’t happening since those are the first line of defense against Russia. I won’t even touch the politics of getting NATO to send troops to protect their own oil supply.

Right now it seems that a fairly chunky bit of Kurds will do it for us. Less logistical trouble, more death. The Kurds have hated the Persians since Cyrus, call it 2500 years. Don’t ask what happened to the IRGC prisoners. Execution would be the least of it.

You might be able to scrape together a division or two of Saudis and another from the Gulf Emirates (spearheaded by the crack grenadiers of Panzer Gruppe Qatar) but I would want two months before they started crossing the Kuwait border.

More realistically you would use lots of special forces, plus those two or three ready battalions, to support whatever Iranian troops and militias defected to the new democratic government.

I suspect what will actually happen is a Democratic leader will appear and seize control of a medium size city. The Iranian government, in the midst of its collapse, would be unable to do anything, and if they tried, US airstrikes would shut it down. In a wave of euphoria, more and more units would defect, more and more cities would declare support for democracy, more and more religious units from the ayatollahs would disintegrate, and the wave of liberation (ahem) would sweep the nation not as moving troops but as existing units and leaders defecting. Eventually Trump would meet with the new leaders in Oman.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, March 05, 2026 - 09:23 am: Edit

Got tech stocks? Sell. Right now.

Allow me to explain.

The Strait of Hormuz is closed. Any doubts about that have been erased by the ships that tried to transit the strait and wound up on fire.

Taiwan is enormously dependent upon Gulf oil. The overwhelming majority of their oil comes through the Strait of Hormuz...or did. Taiwan believes that they have enough petroleum in reserve to get them through March, but no longer.

The odds that the U.S./Israeli war against Iran will be over by the end of March are slim. In the meantime, Iran has been targeting the oil transfer facilities of Gulf nations with missiles and drones, doing considerable damage which cannot reasonably start to be repaired until the war is over.

The U.S. tech industry is enormously dependent upon chips manufactured in Taiwan. When the oil in Taiwan dries up, so will that supply of chips...because while their grid isn't powered by oil, all of their transportation system is. Also, petroleum is a necessary component in chip manufacturing.

So: got tech stocks? Sell. Right now.