5 ms·

The US military knows full well the importance of logistics. TFA is somehow arguing for distributed distribution networks that are harder to track and attack. W

The US military knows full well the importance of logistics. TFA is somehow arguing for distributed distribution networks that are harder to track and attack. Why not advocate for improved defenses along the supply lines? Or is it down to percentages where just one good hit has large effect?

zipy124 2mo ago
They argue for both no? Increased armour for logistics, but also the notion that yes, if one good hit destroys your whole stockpile then you would need a 100% success rate defense mechanism which is impossible when you can be overwhelmed by the number of drones/missiles seen in modern warfare.
maxglute 2mo ago
Knowing logistics is important =/= able to adapt logistics to modern environment. Last 40-50 years US adversaries couldn't really contest/degrade US logistics at scale. Article is suggesting with new tech, they probably could, and hence may have to redo the entire system for distributed survivability / operate under chaos. Aka 60/70% of the force (the tail) is going to have to change the way they do things. It's hard to make 60/70% of org change, especially the boring bureaucratic/logistics part built around predictability, who are going to want to stay predictable and insist everything is fine with these minor changes, until its not.
rawgabbit 2mo ago
Ukraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.
- nickphx 2mo ago
  huh? how does one keep a human in the loop for decision making it there is not an 'electronic tether'?
  - rawgabbit 2mo ago
    A human is not piloting the drone. It patrols even if it lost communication due to jamming. It does need communication to ask the human for authorization to strike.
    - chasd00 2mo ago
      > It does need communication to ask the human for authorization to strike. well.. about that. "A senior figure in the Ukrainian defence industry told New Scientist that a test took place two years ago involving fully autonomous drones set to destroy anything in a given area, with confirmed casualties" https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomous-drones-have-killed-human-soldiers-for-the-first-time/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomou... this article says "one time test" but i, personally, can't believe it's not being used daily. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/ukraines-one-time-test-used-fully-autonomous-drones-to-kill-russian-soldiers/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/ukraines-one-time-test-us...
      - bluGill 2mo ago
        You need human confirmation (for now) only when your side might be there. Tell your army not to go someplace and you can kill anything that is there.
        CamperBob2 2mo ago
        I wonder about the feasibility of an IFF-like mechanism at the level of individual soldiers. The drone could be designed not to attack when a nearby transmitter is broadcasting a prearranged encrypted code that's dependent on elapsed mission time or some other hard-to-spoof factor. Any humans caught out in the open without the IFF signal present are fair game.
        RealityVoid 2mo ago
        I think you can do this relatively simply with infrared led lights. Imagine "Please don't kill me" remote controls. You are a bit more visible when broadcasting, but presumably you can be selective when turning it on.
- mikeodds 2mo ago
  got any more links for info on these?
  - rawgabbit 2mo ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbC2cD1Mxjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbC2cD1Mxjc https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260601-ukraine-kamikaze-drone-partially-operated-ai-attacking-russian-convoys https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260601-ukraine-kamikaze...
- RealityVoid 2mo ago
  These kinds of systems are rare or super rare.
  - fragmede 2mo ago
    Not for long. Software copies easily. Hardware's more difficult.
    - RealityVoid 2mo ago
      You need hardware for these things. High speed image processing and high precision control and global shutter cameras. You can't just slap a raspi on it with any run of the mill camera and call it a day.
      - Edman274 2mo ago
        So what? A Google Pixel 9 Pro costs only about 4 times what a bare RPi 5 with a run of the mill camera costs, yet with its NPU it can perform 45 trillion operations per second with a camera that can reach 240 frames per second at a resolution of 2 megapixels. Do you think that's insufficient to autonomously pilot a drone moving at highway speeds towards a target that it identified as a fighter jet? In addition, it has an onboard battery, GPS, cellular and WiFi connectivity, pressure sensor, accelerometer, and USB connectivity. A phone by itself could replace practically all of the brains of a single use drone and they sell phones literally in the millions. The hardware is terrifyingly easy to source.
        RealityVoid 2mo ago
        It's not as easy as plopping a new SW on it. Have you wondered why, despite this conflict dragging on for this long, autonomous targeting is still not common? It's just much harder to do, and doing it reliably is actually super hard. Hw access is also not as easy as you think. Try getting a Pixel 9 class SoC board that you can actually dev stuff on, you'd be surprised how hard it is to get such a thing. And when you get it, it will probably be 2x as expensive for just the board. Oh, put the Pixel 9 on it then. Have you tried doing optical flow on rolling shutter cameras? Then, whatever solution you get, you need sufficient volume and reliable supply of the thing. Oh, you can't find the chip anymore? Good luck porting the stack you have since the pipeline is different. Whereas these rc FPV drones you can basically build what what you find in the back of your drawer.
- _carbyau_ 2mo ago
  With advances in drones but issues with communications I thought it was obvious that having a drone-area-of-denial would be a thing. I mean, if minefields are okay with the intention to kill anything that walks in the area, why not drones?
Animats 2mo ago
The main point of this paper is that rear area bases are too vulnerable now. This paper is from West Point, and is the view from the Army side. It's a big problem for air forces, too. The US has a tradition of large, supposedly secure bases in the rear. The USAF has relied on this since WWII. It's not working any more. Iran has been hitting US air bases. In the last day, they've hit US bases in Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. That's just this round. There were previous hits a few months back. It's not publicized much, but it's no secret. It's hard to protect an air base against drones. Air bases are big, everyone knows where they are, airplanes are hard to hide from drones, and are vulnerable to small explosive charges. As Russia keeps finding out as Ukraine hits their air bases. There have been hits well inside Russia. Blast-resistant hangars in Crimea have been attacked. Don't leave a door open. China is going in for airbase hardening in a big way.[1] This is sometimes called a "concrete sky" program. The USAF is way behind in the Pacific. Too many planes parked out in the open, or in weak hangars. Active defenses against drones and missiles do work, but they just thin them out. Some get through. If the attacker has enough manufacturing capacity, the defenses can be overwhelmed. Ukraine is currently building about 7 million drones a year. [1] https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concrete-sky-air-base-hardening-western-pacific-timothy-walton-thomas-shugart https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concret...
- shimman 2mo ago
  Maybe the US should focus more on diplomacy and open collaboration rather than letting a few dozen psychopaths convince the country we need to support a war machine that has benefited no one outside of the defense industry.
  - Noumenon72 2mo ago
    If the problem was as simple as a few individuals and had no benefits it would not persist -- this is a Hollywood view of the world that won't help you understand your opposition.
    - shimman 2mo ago
      No, it's quite simple. US imperialism only benefits the select elites of the country at the expense of the poor. Why are you denying the absolutely destructive power of the US military and it's abject failure in not only making the world safer for Americans but explicitly more dangerous? Are you personally benefiting from US imperialism?

zipy124 2mo ago

They argue for both no? Increased armour for logistics, but also the notion that yes, if one good hit destroys your whole stockpile then you would need a 100% success rate defense mechanism which is impossible when you can be overwhelmed by the number of drones/missiles seen in modern warfare.

maxglute 2mo ago

Knowing logistics is important =/= able to adapt logistics to modern environment. Last 40-50 years US adversaries couldn't really contest/degrade US logistics at scale. Article is suggesting with new tech, they probably could, and hence may have to redo the entire system for distributed survivability / operate under chaos. Aka 60/70% of the force (the tail) is going to have to change the way they do things. It's hard to make 60/70% of org change, especially the boring bureaucratic/logistics part built around predictability, who are going to want to stay predictable and insist everything is fine with these minor changes, until its not.

rawgabbit 2mo ago

Ukraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.

nickphx 2mo ago
huh? how does one keep a human in the loop for decision making it there is not an 'electronic tether'?
- rawgabbit 2mo ago
  A human is not piloting the drone. It patrols even if it lost communication due to jamming. It does need communication to ask the human for authorization to strike.
  - chasd00 2mo ago
    > It does need communication to ask the human for authorization to strike. well.. about that. "A senior figure in the Ukrainian defence industry told New Scientist that a test took place two years ago involving fully autonomous drones set to destroy anything in a given area, with confirmed casualties" https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomous-drones-have-killed-human-soldiers-for-the-first-time/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomou... this article says "one time test" but i, personally, can't believe it's not being used daily. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/ukraines-one-time-test-used-fully-autonomous-drones-to-kill-russian-soldiers/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/ukraines-one-time-test-us...
    - bluGill 2mo ago
      You need human confirmation (for now) only when your side might be there. Tell your army not to go someplace and you can kill anything that is there.
      - CamperBob2 2mo ago
        I wonder about the feasibility of an IFF-like mechanism at the level of individual soldiers. The drone could be designed not to attack when a nearby transmitter is broadcasting a prearranged encrypted code that's dependent on elapsed mission time or some other hard-to-spoof factor. Any humans caught out in the open without the IFF signal present are fair game.
        RealityVoid 2mo ago
        I think you can do this relatively simply with infrared led lights. Imagine "Please don't kill me" remote controls. You are a bit more visible when broadcasting, but presumably you can be selective when turning it on.
mikeodds 2mo ago
got any more links for info on these?
- rawgabbit 2mo ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbC2cD1Mxjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbC2cD1Mxjc https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260601-ukraine-kamikaze-drone-partially-operated-ai-attacking-russian-convoys https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260601-ukraine-kamikaze...
RealityVoid 2mo ago
These kinds of systems are rare or super rare.
- fragmede 2mo ago
  Not for long. Software copies easily. Hardware's more difficult.
  - RealityVoid 2mo ago
    You need hardware for these things. High speed image processing and high precision control and global shutter cameras. You can't just slap a raspi on it with any run of the mill camera and call it a day.
    - Edman274 2mo ago
      So what? A Google Pixel 9 Pro costs only about 4 times what a bare RPi 5 with a run of the mill camera costs, yet with its NPU it can perform 45 trillion operations per second with a camera that can reach 240 frames per second at a resolution of 2 megapixels. Do you think that's insufficient to autonomously pilot a drone moving at highway speeds towards a target that it identified as a fighter jet? In addition, it has an onboard battery, GPS, cellular and WiFi connectivity, pressure sensor, accelerometer, and USB connectivity. A phone by itself could replace practically all of the brains of a single use drone and they sell phones literally in the millions. The hardware is terrifyingly easy to source.
      - RealityVoid 2mo ago
        It's not as easy as plopping a new SW on it. Have you wondered why, despite this conflict dragging on for this long, autonomous targeting is still not common? It's just much harder to do, and doing it reliably is actually super hard. Hw access is also not as easy as you think. Try getting a Pixel 9 class SoC board that you can actually dev stuff on, you'd be surprised how hard it is to get such a thing. And when you get it, it will probably be 2x as expensive for just the board. Oh, put the Pixel 9 on it then. Have you tried doing optical flow on rolling shutter cameras? Then, whatever solution you get, you need sufficient volume and reliable supply of the thing. Oh, you can't find the chip anymore? Good luck porting the stack you have since the pipeline is different. Whereas these rc FPV drones you can basically build what what you find in the back of your drawer.
_carbyau_ 2mo ago
With advances in drones but issues with communications I thought it was obvious that having a drone-area-of-denial would be a thing. I mean, if minefields are okay with the intention to kill anything that walks in the area, why not drones?

Animats 2mo ago

The main point of this paper is that rear area bases are too vulnerable now. This paper is from West Point, and is the view from the Army side. It's a big problem for air forces, too. The US has a tradition of large, supposedly secure bases in the rear. The USAF has relied on this since WWII. It's not working any more. Iran has been hitting US air bases. In the last day, they've hit US bases in Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. That's just this round. There were previous hits a few months back. It's not publicized much, but it's no secret. It's hard to protect an air base against drones. Air bases are big, everyone knows where they are, airplanes are hard to hide from drones, and are vulnerable to small explosive charges. As Russia keeps finding out as Ukraine hits their air bases. There have been hits well inside Russia. Blast-resistant hangars in Crimea have been attacked. Don't leave a door open. China is going in for airbase hardening in a big way.[1] This is sometimes called a "concrete sky" program. The USAF is way behind in the Pacific. Too many planes parked out in the open, or in weak hangars. Active defenses against drones and missiles do work, but they just thin them out. Some get through. If the attacker has enough manufacturing capacity, the defenses can be overwhelmed. Ukraine is currently building about 7 million drones a year. [1] https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concrete-sky-air-base-hardening-western-pacific-timothy-walton-thomas-shugart https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concret...

shimman 2mo ago
Maybe the US should focus more on diplomacy and open collaboration rather than letting a few dozen psychopaths convince the country we need to support a war machine that has benefited no one outside of the defense industry.
- Noumenon72 2mo ago
  If the problem was as simple as a few individuals and had no benefits it would not persist -- this is a Hollywood view of the world that won't help you understand your opposition.
  - shimman 2mo ago
    No, it's quite simple. US imperialism only benefits the select elites of the country at the expense of the poor. Why are you denying the absolutely destructive power of the US military and it's abject failure in not only making the world safer for Americans but explicitly more dangerous? Are you personally benefiting from US imperialism?