Russia’s space chief is “very unhappy” with “hostile” US policy

"I am very unhappy with the openly hostile policy of the USA toward my country."

Read the whole story

 

[Chuckstar]

It's not necessarily evidence of a full removal, but the Kyiv Independent has an article about the spokesman of the Ukrainian Special Forces saying they haven't encountered any North Koreans in Kursk Oblast for the past three weeks. An anonymous military intelligence source suggests it's a rotation off the front lines to reconstitute units due to casualties, which would seem consistent with the rumors that more troops are being sent. Two weeks ago Skyrskyi was estimating that the NK forces had suffered ~50% casualties (dead or wounded), while Western intelligence reports put the casualty level at 33% at a minimum.

33-50% casualties in just a few months. Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, Batman!

 

[wagnerrp]

Every day when I read your post I think about what it costs Ukraine to shoot down so many missiles in one night. I don't think about it as much in dollar terms (although that is definitely a factor), as I do in used-up anti-air capacity in a world where the U.S. is making noise about cutting them off from a big chunk of their military aid. Or even when I thought Harris was likely to win, in a world where the ability to replenish anti-air assets has hard limits in terms of production capacity.

It’s completely implausible that they’ve been using traditional SAM systems to do this. Russia has been firing ~500/wk for a long time, and no one has storage that deep. This is certain to be mostly short range gun systems.

My guess, the Russians have just finally managed to coordinate these attacks, spreading them apart and arriving at the same time such that a single AA unit doesn’t have time to be retasked to multiple targets in a single night.

 

[tigas]

Three years old and the anchor just "fell off" in a force 5 wind? The owners should sue the shipyard for selling them a lemon...

So an alternative to environmental inspections could be anchor retention system inspections? Can they be implemented only for ships coming and going from Russia or would that fall foul of UNCLOS?

 

[The Dark]

So an alternative to environmental inspections could be anchor retention system inspections? Can they be implemented only for ships coming and going from Russia or would that fall foul of UNCLOS?

I think it would have to be everyone, since UNCLOS has clauses about not discriminating based on a ship's flag country or its ports of origin or destination. To keep the staffing requirements down, perhaps they could get some semi-autonomous uncrewed vessels from Ukraine to examine ships as they begin to transit the straits?

 

[wagnerrp]

So an alternative to environmental inspections could be anchor retention system inspections? Can they be implemented only for ships coming and going from Russia or would that fall foul of UNCLOS?

To what end? To prove that the systems are fully operational, so when they do drop and drag, the only options are criminal negligence or malice on the part of the crew? You could achieve the same just by stating those as the consequences.

 

[Neverm1nd]

So an alternative to environmental inspections could be anchor retention system inspections? Can they be implemented only for ships coming and going from Russia or would that fall foul of UNCLOS?

In the strait in question, Russia is the only possible destination, but inspections would be doubtful. Anyway, Ukraine seems to have found another solution by bombing the pipeline to Ust-Luga, so there's not much traffic anyway.

 

[KGFish]

It’s completely implausible that they’ve been using traditional SAM systems to do this. Russia has been firing ~500/wk for a long time, and no one has storage that deep. This is certain to be mostly short range gun systems.

My guess, the Russians have just finally managed to coordinate these attacks, spreading them apart and arriving at the same time such that a single AA unit doesn’t have time to be retasked to multiple targets in a single night.

To be fair, I find it completely gob-smacking that Ukrainians manage to down the number of Shaheeds that they do. Ukraine is a huge country, with an enormous number of important facilities - whether economic, industrial, military, or government. That their interception rates approach 90%, nevermind hit 100%, is something I did not expect to see. That requires not just excellent preparation of many small, dispersed units, but also an enemy who, as they say, makes everyone lucky that they're so fucking stupid.

Finally getting 5% through could be as simple as the Shaheeds not constantly flying the same entrance routes.

 

[DanNeely]

Ukraine has upgraded one of it's long range kamikaze drones to drop a 250kg bomb and then return.

I think the most interesting part is that this only makes sense if most of the drones are making it through air defense. If 90% or even 50% were getting shot down then the weight of RTB fuel would be better spent on a bigger explosive load.

I wonder if this means it takes multiple hits to reliably break open and ignite the big tanks at oil depots and refineries. I'd assumed the small number destroyed in the average strike meant that the Russians were managing to intercept most of the incoming strike and the multiple explosions consisted of a few hits on target and lots of wreckage falling short.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...es-with-a-550-pound-bomb-and-returns-to-base/

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Fine. It violates article 38. "Passage shall not be impeded" has a very broad interpretation both in the treaty and in subsequent interpretations by courts, and the only exceptions are listed in article 42, which makes no mention of fees.

Fine. Article 27(2) provides that a foreign ship passing through a coastal State’s territorial sea after leaving its internal waters is not accorded the right of innocent passage and may be stopped by the coastal State.

Both Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg appear to have their docks within "internal waters." I see defined bays - but if you have an authoritative source showing the exact lines of where "internal waters" are for those ports, please do share.

I also suggest perusing Article 19. "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Whole list of things in 19(2) which disqualify "innocent passage" - but it doesn't state it excludes other acts from being "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Given the ongoing destruction of infrastructure (see 19(2)k) and ongoing threats from Russia/Putin - I'd say it's pretty easy to argue.

 

[KGFish]

Ukraine has upgraded one of it's long range kamikaze drones to drop a 250kg bomb and then return.

I think the most interesting part is that this only makes sense if most of the drones are making it through air defense. If 90% or even 50% were getting shot down then the weight of RTB fuel would be better spent on a bigger explosive load.

I wonder if this means it takes multiple hits to reliably break open and ignite the big tanks at oil depots and refineries. I'd assumed the small number destroyed in the average strike meant that the Russians were managing to intercept most of the incoming strike and the multiple explosions consisted of a few hits on target and lots of wreckage falling short.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...es-with-a-550-pound-bomb-and-returns-to-base/

I think the approach here is that the return is just a bonus. Big airframes are rare and more expensive than cardboard cutouts powered by a lawnmower engine, so any return is a positive.

 

[KGFish]

Fine. Article 27(2) provides that a foreign ship passing through a coastal State’s territorial sea after leaving its internal waters is not accorded the right of innocent passage and may be stopped by the coastal State.

Both Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg appear to have their docks within "internal waters." I see defined bays - but if you have an authoritative source showing the exact lines of where "internal waters" are for those ports, please do share.

I also suggest perusing Article 19. "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Whole list of things in 19(2) which disqualify "innocent passage" - but it doesn't state it excludes other acts from being "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Given the ongoing destruction of infrastructure (see 19(2)k) and ongoing threats from Russia/Putin - I'd say it's pretty easy to argue.

And finally, I'd like to also remind everyone that China lost a few rather significant UNCLOS judgments, and the outcome was... zero. China essentially said "Says you and what army?" and everyone compared armies, navies, air force, and economic impacts, and ground their teeth as China just continued doing what it did.

 

[DanNeely]

I think the approach here is that the return is just a bonus. Big airframes are rare and more expensive than cardboard cutouts powered by a lawnmower engine, so any return is a positive.

If most are destroyed you'd get more damage out of carrying a 500kg bomb on a one way flight than an extra 250kg of fuel for a return trip.

Ukraine large kamikaze drones have been based off of small general aviation aircraft. Google gave 8-9 gallons for 120mi as the typical fuel economy for it's favorite Cesna (a 172). At the high end that's an extra ~245kg of fuel to RTB.

Which means if they're not averaging a 50% survival rate, 1 way drones would be delivering more payload per airframe built.

Adjust that number up or down based on how close the model google picked actually matches what Ukraine's basing their long range drones on, but you still need a significant recovery rate before it's worth while.

Especially since Russia should have better odds of intercepting them on the way back just because they'll have more time to scramble fighters into range to engage before they return to relative safety and will eventually start using the fast turn around missile strikes they used to counter sambushes to start plinking drone landing bases.

 

[tucu]

A couple of articles about the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean. This one from Maritime Executive a few days ago

Fire Breaks Out on Russian Spy Ship Off Syria
U.S.-funded Radio Liberty reports that the Russian surveillance ship Kildin suffered an apparent engine room fire or stack fire while loitering off Syria's coast last week. The incident was observed by French naval forces on Thursday but not reported until Monday.
According to RFI's source in the French navy, the fire started at about 1200 GMT and burned for about five hours. Kildin reportedly turned down all offers of aid.
Kildin is a 55-year-old intelligence ship built in Soviet-controlled Poland, one of a series of nine. RFI suggests that her role off Syria is to monitor communications to gain insight on the intentions and plans of Syria's new rulers.

Cargo movements under way at Tartus
Satellite photos obtained Monday show that cargo movements are finally under way at the Russian naval base at Tartus, Syria, signaling a likely evacuation of the military equipment that has been waiting on the pier for the past month.

Two military cargo ships (Sparta and Sparta II) were dispatched to Syria from the Baltic, arriving in early January. Amidst rumors of negotiations between Russia and Syria, they loitered off the coast for weeks. Both finally berthed at the base early last week, and the satellite imaging taken Monday shows significant changes on the piers. Sparta II has left port and is under way, and a large quantity of the equipment that had been located next to her berth is now gone. Sparta is still alongside, and the staging area near her is filled with containers.

(sat photos in the article- link below)

And this one today in The Guardian

Russian spy ship fire exposes poor state of Mediterranean fleet, say experts

A fire onboard a Russian spy ship off the coast of Syria has underlined the poor state of the Russian navy as its toehold in the Mediterranean hangs in the balance, analysts and western security services say.

The 55-year-old Kildin got into trouble off the Syrian coast last Thursday, when flames and thick black smoke could be seen billowing from its funnel and it hoisted two black balls up its mast, signifying that the crew no longer had control of the vessel.

The ship notified a nearby Togolese-flagged cargo freighter, the Milla Moon, that it was unable to steer and warned it to stay at least 2km away. The Russian crew assembled on the Kildin’s aft deck and uncovered the lifeboats, but did not ask for help, and after five hours fighting the fire the Kildin restarted its engines and got under way again.

According to western security services, the ship was in the eastern Mediterranean to monitor events in Syria after the fall in December of the Moscow ally Bashar al-Assad, as the Russian navy began to move military equipment out of the part of the Tartus port it controls.

The western sources argued that the Kildin fire, after another blaze two months earlier on the Russian missile frigate the Admiral Gorshkov, revealed Russia’s maritime presence in the area to be in a state of disrepair and disarray. They said that, at the same time that the Kildin was in distress, two other Russian naval vessels, the landing ships Ivan Gren and the Aleksandr Otrakovsky were also adrift temporarily without control of navigation.
<...>

Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...poor-state-of-mediterranean-fleet-say-experts
https://maritime-executive.com/article/fire-breaks-out-on-russian-spy-ship-off-syria

 

[Neverm1nd]

Fine. Article 27(2) provides that a foreign ship passing through a coastal State’s territorial sea after leaving its internal waters is not accorded the right of innocent passage and may be stopped by the coastal State.

Both Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg appear to have their docks within "internal waters." I see defined bays - but if you have an authoritative source showing the exact lines of where "internal waters" are for those ports, please do share.

I also suggest perusing Article 19. "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Whole list of things in 19(2) which disqualify "innocent passage" - but it doesn't state it excludes other acts from being "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."

Given the ongoing destruction of infrastructure (see 19(2)k) and ongoing threats from Russia/Putin - I'd say it's pretty easy to argue.

All those articles are in Part II, which pertains to innocent passage through territorial waters. The relevant chapter here is Part III, which pertains to passage through straights. The rule set is different.

 

[tigas]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what defines a strait, and how does that apply to the transit parts of the Baltic where the infrastructure damage has happened instead of just to the straits (the Skagerrat and the other whose name I can never remember)?

 

[Disordered]

And finally, I'd like to also remind everyone that China lost a few rather significant UNCLOS judgments, and the outcome was... zero. China essentially said "Says you and what army?" and everyone compared armies, navies, air force, and economic impacts, and ground their teeth as China just continued doing what it did.

Yes, Taiwan's cables possibly cut, also in Baltic. And not forgetting that putin is President Xi's surrogate. We Europeans are certainly living in interesting times. Hopefully the President stays with the policy of economic superiority and dominance.

 

[Neverm1nd]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what defines a strait, and how does that apply to the transit parts of the Baltic where the infrastructure damage has happened instead of just to the straits (the Skagerrat and the other whose name I can never remember)?

According to the treaty:

"This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone."

Another part later on excludes straits where there is an alternative route.

 

[Chuckstar]

All those articles are in Part II, which pertains to innocent passage through territorial waters. The relevant chapter here is Part III, which pertains to passage through straights. The rule set is different.

The Gulf of Finland is not a strait under international law. A straight connects two bodies of water that are both international waters.

 

[Neverm1nd]

The Gulf of Finland is not a strait under international law. A straight connects two bodies of water that are both international waters.

No, that's not the definition in the treaty. The definition in the post above your's is s direct quote from the treaty. Russia has an exclusive economic zone along it's own coast in the Gulf of Finland. The ships in question are transiting from that zone to international waters.

 

[Cthel]

Saturday morning's missile/drone attack report from Ukraine:

• 7x Iskander-M/KN-23 TBMs
• 7x Iskander-K GLCMs
• 8x Kh-22/-32 ALCMs
• 8x Kh-101/-55M ALCMs
• 10x Kh-59/-69 ALCMs
• 2x Kh-31P ARMs
• 123x Shahed aerial torpedoes & decoys (56 intercepted, 61 crashed)

"Some of the enemy cruise missiles were destroyed by air defences." (no numbers given)

Spoiler: Telegram embed (UKR)

View: https://t.me/kpszsu/27940

That's by far the heaviest attack since Trump's inauguration, and it looks like quite a few missiles hit something, even if not what they were aimed at ("A significant number of missiles did not reach their targets due to the active counteraction of the Defence Forces. However, there were also hits, in particular by missiles that entered the target on a ballistic trajectory. We have not yet released detailed information about the enemy missiles.")

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Hope this is them blowing a load and not a sign that they've reconstructed a missile logistics pipeline.

 

[numerobis]

So an alternative to environmental inspections could be anchor retention system inspections? Can they be implemented only for ships coming and going from Russia or would that fall foul of UNCLOS?

Regulations cannot discriminate. But just anchor inspections wouldn’t achieve anything real, neither directly nor in being annoying.

 

[numerobis]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what defines a strait, and how does that apply to the transit parts of the Baltic where the infrastructure damage has happened instead of just to the straits (the Skagerrat and the other whose name I can never remember)?

Normally it’s a body of water belonging to a country, with land belonging to said country on both sides (left and right as you transition), and waters of different countries or the high seas on both sides (front and back as you transition).

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

All those articles are in Part II, which pertains to innocent passage through territorial waters. The relevant chapter here is Part III, which pertains to passage through straights. The rule set is different.

Mmmkay, you seem to be doing a very selective and overly broad misinterpretation of Part III.

Article 39(1) Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

As above, super easy to argue that threat and use of force is happening.

Article 41(1) 1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships.

Designating sea lanes/routes is clearly legal. Upthread there was "BUT UNCLOS" wailing and gnashing about that. It was complete bullshit.

In addition: Requiring local pilots or pilot boats for states which have caused infrastructure damage is a "traffic separation scheme." You are separating the known bad actors from the normal shipping.

Article 42 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;

Stopping ships from damaging infrastructure is clearly within scope here as well.

I'm sure you're ready to try and justify with Article 42(2)

Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.

I don't see a problem here as long as you apply the pilot boat rules to any nation which has a habit of damaging infrastructure or making threats of damaging infrastructure. It's not discrimination if the same rules apply to anyone.

 

[Neverm1nd]

Mmmkay, you seem to be doing a very selective and overly broad misinterpretation of Part III.

Article 39(1) Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

As above, super easy to argue that threat and use of force is happening.

Article 41(1) 1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships.

Designating sea lanes/routes is clearly legal. Upthread there was "BUT UNCLOS" wailing and gnashing about that. It was complete bullshit.

In addition: Requiring local pilots or pilot boats for states which have caused infrastructure damage is a "traffic separation scheme." You are separating the known bad actors from the normal shipping.

Article 42 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;

Stopping ships from damaging infrastructure is clearly within scope here as well.

I'm sure you're ready to try and justify with Article 42(2)

Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.

I don't see a problem here as long as you apply the pilot boat rules to any nation which has a habit of damaging infrastructure or making threats of damaging infrastructure. It's not discrimination if the same rules apply to anyone.

But the question here was transit fees, or possibly inspections? I agree that pilots would probably be ok.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

But the question here was transit fees, or possibly inspections? I agree that pilots would probably be ok.

I can't speak to the transit fees, but inspections should certainly be doable for known bad actors.

 

[David Mayer]

Regulations cannot discriminate. But just anchor inspections wouldn’t achieve anything real, neither directly nor in being annoying.

The regulations may not on paper be able to do so, but they can absolutely be implemented in a discriminatory way.

 

[whobeme]

We dropped the anchor on the cable completely by accident, Bulgarian style:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WOWpMAQAGs


I'm thinking one of the crewman did it. No shortage of Russian sympathizers in that country.

 

[Neverm1nd]

The regulations may not on paper be able to do so, but they can absolutely be implemented in a discriminatory way.

I don't think discrimination is an issue here. Everyone transiting the strait is going to or from Russia. Ships going to Finland or Estonia aren't transiting, they are entering the territorial waters of those countries.

 

[DB63]

Monthly update on my tracking graphs. I've added Artillery to the RU Personnel/Armour losses. Also adjusted how the rolling averages are calculated (they were lagged, now centred).

In Personnel/Armour, Tanks continue their fall since they split from Personnel in Jan-24. Artillery pieces have been in steep decline since Jul-24

With Shaheds/Missiles, it's similar to last month. The Shaheds are more or less constant, though the red 'snow-caps' in the last ten days shows that more have been getting through lately. Missile strikes are every two to three weeks, though the scale of them seems to be reducing, and the gap between them might be widening.

This chart shows the number of Missiles being used seems to have been falling since the end of Dec-24.

 

[numerobis]

Monthly update on my tracking graphs. I've added Artillery to the RU Personnel/Armour losses. Also adjusted how the rolling averages are calculated (they were lagged, now centred).

In Personnel/Armour, Tanks continue their fall since they split from Personnel in Jan-24. Artillery pieces have been in steep decline since Jul-24

View attachment 101651

With Shaheds/Missiles, it's similar to last month. The Shaheds are more or less constant, though the red 'snow-caps' in the last ten days shows that more have been getting through lately. Missile strikes are every two to three weeks, though the scale of them seems to be reducing, and the gap between them might be widening.

View attachment 101653

This chart shows the number of Missiles being used seems to have been falling since the end of Dec-24.

View attachment 101655

Methodology question: how do you get a 7-month centered average for last week?

2nd question: why don’t the curves have a “1” value, if they’re normalized for the max value?

 

[David Mayer]

Methodology question: how do you get a 7-month centered average for last week?

2nd question: why don’t the curves have a “1” value, if they’re normalized for the max value?

2nd question: why don’t the curves have a “1” value, if they’re normalized for the max value?

If they are rolling averages then the curves will never reach the max value in the data. Edit: Unless the max value is precisely sustained for a rolling average period.

 

[DB63]

Methodology question: how do you get a 7-month centered average for last week?

2nd question: why don’t the curves have a “1” value, if they’re normalized for the max value?

1. Last point is an average of the last four. I think the centred average is better in that aligns with past points better, but it makes the tail a bit more sensitive to movement/noise.

2. It's average of normalised values, not the other way round.

 

[The Dark]

An update on Oryx's tracked Russian tanks destroyed:
October 2024 had 97 destroyed. 29 (30%) were unidentified. 35 (36%) were Soviet-era tanks, 14 (14%) were tanks modernized before the invasion of Ukraine, and 19 (20%) were post-invasion expedient models.

November 2024 had 69 destroyed. 23 (33%) unidentified, 17 (25%) Soviet, 6 (9%) modern, and 23 (33%) expedient.

December 2024 had 61 destroyed. 12 (20%) unidentified, 17 (28%) Soviet, 12 (20%) modern, and 20 (33%) expedient.

January 2025 had 58 destroyed. 20 (34%) unidentified, 18 (31%) Soviet, 1 (2%) modern, and 19 (33%) expedient.

For that four-month period, 29% of destroyed tanks were unidentified, 31% were Soviet, 12% were modern, and 28% were expedient. If the unidentified losses break down in similar proportions to the identified losses (which may not necessarily be the case if certain age categories are more or less prone to truly devastating explosions), then the overall losses were 44% Soviet, 17% modern, and 39% expedient. At a minimum, I think it's safe to say Russia is either running out of its most modern tanks or is keeping most of them away from the front lines.

 

[numerobis]

1. Last point is an average of the last four. I think the centred average is better in that aligns with past points better, but it makes the tail a bit more sensitive to movement/noise.

Got it. Wars have been fought over this, far more brutal than this little Russia-Ukraine skirmish.

2. It's average of normalised values, not the other way round.

Ah ok. I'm used to normalizing after averaging, since the point of the averaging is that you suspect the individual values to be noisy.

Your graphs are great, I'm just letting my Ph.D. training sneak in. They really illustrate nicely that something is happening in the kill counts.

 

[numerobis]

I think the approach here is that the return is just a bonus. Big airframes are rare and more expensive than cardboard cutouts powered by a lawnmower engine, so any return is a positive.

It implies cost (instead of fuel for the engine you could have hauled fuel or explosives for causing damage) so the return must have a reasonable expectation of success.

I guess also if you fly back, that means AA has a second target to worry about while the incoming are still coming in.

 

[DB63]

Got it. Wars have been fought over this, far more brutal than this little Russia-Ukraine skirmish.


Ah ok. I'm used to normalizing after averaging, since the point of the averaging is that you suspect the individual values to be noisy.

Your graphs are great, I'm just letting my Ph.D. training sneak in. They really illustrate nicely that something is happening in the kill counts.

Not a professional statistician, but I use them quite a bit in my working life. I try and keep them as simple as possible, as I reckon things that show up with simple stats are more likely to have a noticeable effect in real life.

This version is averaged then normalised order. I find it a tiny bit harder to read.

Spoiler: a chart

It can also be normalised against the value a year ago, which highlights the separating of the paths at the cost of obscuring the beginnings.

Spoiler: a chart

 

[bthylafh]

post-invasion expedient models.

What does this mean, exactly? T-90Ms made to a lower standard?

 

[mhalpern]

What does this mean, exactly? T-90Ms made to a lower standard?

that and finding "interesting" (read ancient) optics for them. like illumination IR.

 

[whobeme]

If most are destroyed you'd get more damage out of carrying a 500kg bomb on a one way flight than an extra 250kg of fuel for a return trip.

Or how about 5 100 kg bombs which are dropped sequentially? Oil refineries and storage depots are one of the primary targets for these drones. These tend to consist of straight evenly spaced rows of large tanks filled with flammable liquid. Currently it seems that one drone blows up one tank. What if one drone could blow up 5? What if it could blow up every other tank in a row of 10? If the 5 hit go up in flames the intervening ones are likely to be destroyed too.