As we were just saying earlier ...

/

David Strom, HotAir:

Finally, a Drone Killer That Doesn't Break the Bank

Everybody is talking about drone warfare, which has democratized long-range, low-risk strikes on adversaries. 

Capabilities that used to be the exclusive province of major militaries with large, very capable air forces with stealth aircraft are now available to everyone, including countries like Iran and even terrorist groups living in medieval conditions like the Houthis. 

Even before Trump and Biden decided to ramp up their attacks on the Houthis, the US had spent nearly a billion dollars and expended a lot of hard-to-replace munitions to shoot down inexpensive drones that have been attacking commercial shipping and naval vessels, shutting down almost all shipping in the Red Sea. 

You can argue that the cost was worth it--it probably was, as Alex Hollings of Sandboxx News argued, but you can't argue that there aren't much better and cheaper ways to accomplish the task. Sending a multi-million dollar missile to shoot down a $25- or $50-thousand dollar drone is a bad exchange ratio, and finding a cheaper way to accomplish the task was necessary. 

And that cheaper way is here. Much cheaper, easier, and replaceable than an SM-3 or SM-6 missile that might be needed to fight China someday soon. Ammunition magazines are not infinitely stocked, resources are not unlimited, and our responsibilities extend far beyond ensuring that the sea lanes for European trade are kept open. The mission might be important, but it is not the only important mission.

Xi Jinping probably chuckled every time we fired a multi-million dollar missile to take down a Shahed drone. 

So I was intrigued when Alex described a new mission for the old, reliable, but not especially accurate unguided missile that has been in use for many decades. As with unguided bombs to which JDAM kits were installed, some clever engineers have managed to turn these rockets into drone killers that are remarkably cheap, reliable, and that give a modern fighter jet an amazing magazine of ammunition to take down drones at a rapid rate. 

Take a look at the massive drone attack on Israel in which a coalition of Middle Eastern countries and the United States collaborated to shoot down over 100 drones and missiles aimed at Israel. It was a grueling and expensive task to defend Israel from an overwhelming drone swarmed aimed at civilians. 

Most of the kills came from expending very expensive air-to-air missiles, and each aircraft can carry relatively few of them. The task was so urgent that many aircraft resorted to firing guns, with extremely limited ammunition and poor accuracy, endangering the aircraft and accomplishing relatively little compared to the time involved. 

Now the alternative has arrived. 

Originally designed for use against lightly armored ground targets back in 2008, this system takes an existing 2.75-inch fin-stabilized but unguided rocket and adds a soda can-sized mid-body guidance unit, called the WGU-59/B, behind the warhead but ahead of its existing Mk 66 Mod 4 rocket motor. In order to make sure these weapons still fit in their standard launch tubes, BAE Systems incorporated the guidance sensors into four small, foldable wings, each housing laser-seeker optics that are blended together into a single, wide field of view.

The cost? About $25,000, making for a 1:1 or even 2:1 cost ratio. And, obviously, $25,000 means a lot less to the USA than to Iran or the Houthis. 

….

And while the cost to replace those Sidewinders and AMRAAMs will range from as little as $52 million (if they were all cheap Sidewinders) to as much as $146 million (if they were all pricier AMRAAMs)… the cost of replacing all 168 expended rockets would have been a comparatively tiny $4.2 million. 

You could literally buy an F-35 and two Black Hawk helicopters with what these weapons could have saved in that single engagement alone.

More details at the link, and if that’s not sufficient to your needs for more information, Strom provides further links:

I highly recommend Alex Hollings' excellent article on this weapon, and recommend following him on Sandboxx News, X, and YouTube. His stuff is excellent, his videos fun to watch and informative, and it's an easy way to keep up with developments (and sometimes history) in the military realm. 

It fared better this time

/

20 Dingletown Road, asking $4.8 million, is under contract after just 5 days. Allowing for the time expended drawing up contracts, that’s pretty much overnight.

The soon-to-be former owners are the beneficiary of the original builders’ “bad luck”: they paid $3.6 million in 2010 after those builders — real estate agents in their other lives — had paid $1.420 for the land in 2004 and attempted to get $5.395 million ($8,459,000 in current dollars) for their completed project, beginning in July 2006 and ending when theyt finally tired of the game and sold it for that $3.6 in 2010.

Different times, different market.

The rule of law, Connecticut style

/

Stop!

“Mistreatment” is the pretext, thwarting the deportation of illegal aliens is the goal

NEW HAVEN — Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sent a strongly worded letter to Avelo Airlines founder and CEO Andrew Levy Tuesday, seeking assurances that deportation charter flights Avelo plans to run from Arizona won't violate the rights of immigrants.

Tong's letter seeks assurances that Avelo won't shackle deportees — particularly children — and that the flights will not be used to separate children from their parents or to deport immigrants without a valid deportation order, among other issues.

It threatens to "rescind (state) support for and partnership with Avelo ... absent clear, public commitments to safety and the rule of law."
 
….

"Let’s be clear what these flights are doing. These are flights separating parents from their children. These are flights where people—men, women and children — are shackled in handcuffs, waist chains and leg irons, where flight attendants have said there is no safe plan to evacuate people in an emergency," the letter states.

"No one is forcing Avelo to operate these flights. If reporting is accurate, Avelo has freely chosen to profit from and facilitate these atrocities," Tong said. "The State of Connecticut has an obligation now to review this business decision and to consider the viability of our choice to support Avelo."

Tong said "it is the policy of the State of Connecticut to support, honor and protect families, to uphold public safety and to defend the rule of law. Connecticut taxpayers have supported Avelo’s growth in our state by exempting state taxes on aviation fuel. Connecticut public officials have joined Avelo in celebrating and promoting new routes and expanded business in our state. Such support is a policy choice that may be revisited should Avelo’s business practices conflict with Connecticut priorities and policies.," he wrote.

Tong requested a copy of Avelo's contract with DHS or its agent and asked whether Avelo can confirm that it will not operate deportation flights from any Connecticut airport. He also asked it to confirm that it will not operate flights while non-violent passengers are in shackles, handcuffs, waist chains or leg irons "and unable to safely evacuate in the event of an emergency."

Tong also asked Avelo to confirm that it will never operate a flight without a safe and timely evacuation strategy for all passengers "should restraint be necessary," that "it will never operate flights with shackled children," and that it will never operate deportation flights in defiance of a court order, or one involving passengers for whom there is no valid order of removal.

"Can Avelo confirm that it will never operate a flight to deport a child born on American soil?" he asked.

Tong’s demand is merely one part of a determined effort by the state to resist enforcement of federal immigration laws:

Tong's letter went out as Tong and the state consider whether to revoke already-awarded state support for Avelo,  including a $2 million revenue guarantee and a two-year freeze on aviation fuel tax, in response to news that Avelo plans to begin flight deportation charter flights under contract to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS.

A few billion dollars and ten years late, but that's defense spending for you

/

New Navy chief 'regrets' costly missile interceptors against Houthis, pushes for cheaper Red Sea defense

'I had not been thoughtful enough to think about the UAV threat where I think a much lesser-powered weapon would have done what we needed it to do,' says Adm James Kilby

“UAV” — that’s military speak for “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” — a drone, to you and me; you know, the ones you can buy from Amazon?

New acting Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. James Kilby said he regrets the Navy’s reliance on expensive, high-powered missile interceptors to counter the Houthi threat in the Red Sea and pledged to push for cheaper, more efficient solutions.

Speaking to reporters at the Sea Air Space conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Kilby said he was "not concerned" about the Navy’s ability to protect its people – such as the 350 sailors aboard the USS Carney missile destroyer – or its ability to safeguard commercial shipping.

He is concerned, however, about "not having better ways to more economically attrit the threat." 

In his former role as deputy commander of Fleet Forces Command, Kilby said he was "focused on a high-end laser – 500kW to one megawatt – and I have regret for that."

"I had not been thoughtful enough to think about the UAV threat, where I think a much lesser-powered weapon would have done what we needed it to do," Kilby said.

He promised the Navy was now working to overhaul its costly defense tactics with "much more cost-effective" technologies to counter autonomous vehicles in the Red Sea, as he called on the defense industry to more quickly produce munitions for the mission.

"We have to get after our industrial base or munitions industrial base the same way we have to get after our shipbuilding industrial base," said Kilby. 

Onlookers have long decried the disproportionate cost of taking on the Yemeni rebels. Naval missiles that run around $2 million a shot have been used to take out drones that cost the Houthis no more than $2,000. Since the March 15 offensive began, the Houthis have also downed three MQ-9 Reaper drones — each worth about $30 million.

The Ukrainian war exercises have shown what cheap, disposable drones can do against Russian tanks and ships; we shouldn’t have needed the primitive Houthis to drive the lesson home.

What's a hard working media to do? Will nothing stop this man?

/

Not the Bee has the story

From The Hill:

Washington City Paper first reported on the parade, noting it will stretch almost 4 miles from the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., to the White House.

An Army official confirmed the parade's length to The Hill, and said that 'there are plans for a parade that will involve the Army,' adding that nothing is yet solidified.

As the report made the rounds online on Monday, liberals came out of the woodwork to criticize the proposed event:

Here's the problem:

Yes, the June 14th parade would be on Trump's birthday, but that just so happens to be the birthday of the United States Army as well. It's also Flag Day.

Signal-Gate has come and gone, and so, too has Black Monday Tariff Doom, and Trump’s approval rate is higher than it’s ever been. I feel their pain.

The flight to Florida continues (Updated)

/

Two more Conyers Farm mansions have hit the market and are both conducting broker open houses for the great unwashed today.

11 Conyers Farm is asking $19.995 million. Custom built for these owners in 1996, buyers will be able to enjoy 16,4597 sq. ft. of luxury set on 19.69 acres.

For those looking for less house but more land and a larger price tag, 24 Conyers Farm: 12,312 sq.ft., 25 acres, is priced at $25 million and is also available. Or buy both — there might be a discount for a combo sale, but you won’t know if you don’t ask.

UPDATE: A reader supplies further details

FYI- they may not have fled to Florida- The owners purchased 130 Field Point Circle. Razed “The Pryory”, and built a massive modern glass box that belongs in Malibu.

11 Conyers hosted numerous swanky fundraisers for Obama https://pagesix.com/2014/10/08/obama-slams-republicans-as-party-of-billionaires/

A follow-on to yesterday's post about normalizing deviant behavior

/

“well only those who deserve to die”

Full post:

Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump. In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Mangione. The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response. This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb.

UPDATE: PowerLine’s John Hinderaker has seen the same polls, and has some pessimistic views on the subject.

Let’s Kill the Republicans

It has been a while since Democrats have assassinated a Republican president, but that peaceful interlude may be ending soon. You likely have heard about a survey report by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, which examines the growing tolerance for violence in American society. Or, rather, on America’s Left:

Political violence targeting Donald Trump and Elon Musk is becoming increasingly normalized. Following the July 13, 2024 attempted assassination of President Trump, tolerance – and even advocacy – for political violence appears to have surged, especially among politically left-leaning segments of the population. This pattern builds on a broader trend NCRI identified in two December 2024 reports which analyzed how viral social media narratives were legitimizing political violence, particularly in the aftermath of the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s assassination. The reports found widespread justification for lethal violence – including assassination – among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users. A spillover effect into offline domains is already occurring, as illustrated by a ballot measure recently submitted in California that is macabrely named “the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act.”

How partial to violence are liberals? These charts indicate that around half of those who describe themselves as left of center (from “slightly liberal” on over) say that assassinating Donald Trump or Elon Musk is at least somewhat justified:

…..

This chart is perhaps more informative. It breaks down responses of those considered left of center–“Far Left, Liberal, or Slightly Liberal”–to questions about assassinating Donald Trump and Elon Musk:

So, among those who say they are “slightly liberal” or farther to the left, 9% think the murder of Elon Musk would be “completely justified,” and 13% say the murder of Donald Trump would be “completely justified.” Which suggests that there are a lot of potential assassins out there.

If we take a score of 4 on this chart–midway between “Not at all justified” and “Completely justified”–29% of those who say they are liberals are pretty much OK with murdering Elon Musk, and 41% are OK with murdering President Trump.

We are in uncharted territory. Not many years ago, it would have been inconceivable that a large number of members of either party would tolerate assassinations of their opponents (or firebombing of businesses owned by a political opponent, which is even more broadly supported by liberals). And it is still inconceivable on the right–no significant number of conservatives are calling for the murder of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or whoever.

Data like these raise, I think, the question whether the United States has a future as a united country. Our schools are so terrible, our culture is so depraved, our “news” media are so pathetic, that what the linked report describes as an “assassination culture” has taken hold of one our major parties. Is there, any longer, a basis on which liberals and conservatives can collaborate, in good faith, in governing a democracy?

I am not at all sure the answer to that question is Yes.