It's interesting to see the US still investing billions in maintaining their military supremacy, while its adversaries have been fighting a much cheaper and more effective warfare of information for decades now. The effects are becoming increasingly apparent in the political and social instability we're seeing in western countries.

All the fancy planes and bombs can't save you from your society and government collapsing from the inside out, amid the confusion of not knowing who the real enemy is. The crazy thing is that the US built the perfect weapons (social media) and made them available to its enemies to use as they please, and it still can't figure out ways to stop it.

It strikes me that US DARPA has a weird position where the more military advantage can come from concentrated high investments then the US+allies/beneficiaries win. (Ie fewer expensive toys should win against many cheap toys)

If Mil technology is too cheap then US advantage is much lower.

So part of that is just keeping SOTA moving quickly. But also centrally-deployed tech having outsized longevity (things like satellite deployment or AI or the anti-missile battery-type stuff).

For this launching from a larger vessel maybe.

It's interesting to me how the article mentions the large payload requirement, then the only example of what that payload _could_ be is reconnaissance.

I always find it interesting how and when people or groups emphasize or de-emphasize the "death and destruction" aspect of military equipment

The MIC is surprisingly fragile when it comes to longterm stress to the economic system keeping it alive. So important is not how "advanced" a drone is, but how cheap and easy it can be assembled and supplied long after all supply chains collapse. He whos garbage air force circles the wasteland long after all opposition perished we shall crown victor.

Anduril is not on the list, but presumably wants to compete in the space?

Propeller-driven tail-sitters were ready to be the next generation of military carrier-based aircraft after WW2, but no pilot could safely land them. UAVs do not need pilots to land them; their sensors can point any direction.

Why focus on these huge planes vs lots of tiny autonomous drones? Drones seem to be the future given Ukraine and Iran fighting…

Someone at DARPA is a fan of Ann Leckie's novels

[flagged]

[flagged]

unmanned machines on the land or in the air, that can decide to kill a human, are one of the legitimate existential fears around AI advances right now. source: G7 white robe guy this week