Why do Russians have problems destroying Turkish-built drones?

Image) Baykar Bayraktar TB2 (Wikipedia/Baykar Bayraktar TB2)

The Russian-Ukrainian war predicted that Russia will win Ukraine in 96 hours. The reality might be different. The war carries on, and many other predictions are not matched with reality. This war has been a pain and nightmare for Russians. 

The drones are invisible and very frightening killers. That can use alone or with manned aircraft. The manned aircraft can drop drones to the operational areas. And then those drones can mark targets. Or they can attack against the targets. Long-range drones like Loyal wingmen can be equipped with warheads and they can hit against missiles. And especially the long-range anti-aircraft and tactical battlefield missile launchers. 

Many things are problematic in the Ukrainian war. The predictions are not matched with reality. But one of the questions is simple. Why Ukrainian drones are not as easy to destroy as they predicted? Those Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drones are predicted to be easy targets. But there is something why Russians are not made that thing? The Bayraktar-drones are not the most advanced systems in the world. They are classified as the 2nd or 3rd. class drones. 

That is sold for some 2nd or 3rd. class countries. The Turkish build drones are introduced as "easy to jam" systems that are not so multi-use and effective as manned aircraft. But those drones seem still flying and destroy the attackers. The ECM systems along with air defense missiles and AA-artillery are predicted to be the most effective counteractors against the drones. 

There are three possibilities for the jammer system's ineffectiveness against those drones. 

1) Russians have those systems, but they don't use them. 

2) Russians have those systems, but those systems are somewhere else

3) Russians have those systems, but they are ineffective. 

But how that thing can be possible? The fact is that even cheap drones can turn extremely dangerous very easily. Operators can change components and the computer programs of those systems without telling the manufacturer that modification. The Ukrainian war, or rather saying, Russian invasion to Ukraine shown, that predictions are dangerous. Putin overestimated his force. And now he will pay the price. 

Drones might be very unsportsmanlike. But those systems are effective. The purpose of the military is to be frightening. It must scare enemies that they are not attacking to country. The military is meant to be a tool in the hands of the country and government. And the drones are allowing that government can control those things easier than some special forces man. 

And the only purpose that force has is to destroy enemies. If there is a shame to be some drone operator that is good for government. The shame helps those people to keep their mouths shut. The reason why drones are in use in many countries. Is the problem to recruit people in special forces. 

Or actually, the problem is that there are very long service times for those operators. And the skills that are trained to them are causing those people to be hard to control. The drone operator is easier to control than traditional special forces operators. The only needed thing is to cut their connection with drones. 

The fact is that the new drones are bringing new doctrine to battlefields. There are two types of killer drones. The Bayraktar is a Predator-type unmanned quite complicated unmanned aircraft. 

Another type of those horrifying system is smaller and simpler kamikaze drones. Those kamikaze drones are cruise missiles that are used in many conflicts. The target drone is equipped with a camera and the warhead can use as a kamikaze drone. 

In traditional systems, the weakness is that the system requires all-time communication. The RPV controller orders that small cruise missile dive against its target. The target can be the tank, building, or some other suitable target. But there is the possibility that the kamikaze drones are also equipped with the IIR (Image InfraRed) or image recognition-based systems. When the drone recognizes its target it will dive and impact against them. 

The "mother of those systems" is the BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile. That well-known and deadly weapon is the BQM-109 target and recon drone that is equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads. After the success of the Tomahawk systems, the smaller drones are equipped with similar target recognition and attack systems. And the fact is that all target drones can equip with warheads. 

The threat is that terrorists can modify the flying assembly kits by using warheads. And that thing causes problems with national security. Drones are frightening and scary systems. The army of Azerbaijan used drones effectively against Armenian troops in their conflict. 

But they are effective. And that's why they are part of the arsenal of many nations. The success of Bayraktar TB2 in Ukraine and Azerbaijan guarantees good markets for those drones. The thing that makes the drones effective is that they can use against better-trained soldiers. The drone operator doesn't need military training at all. And that makes those people easier to control. There is always a risk that highly trained special forces operator turns against the authorities or regular people.

Drone operators might seem very unsportsmanlike. But armies are not made for sports they are made to afraid enemies. And one thing is that the control of those systems and men are the key element in military planning. The skills that are learned in armies. Are meant for serving their country and government. Military skills are not meant to use in some restaurants. The problem with special forces has been the long service times. When the service ends the serviceman must go and find a new profession. And that thing causes problems in civil life. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukraines-bayraktar-tb2-drones-are-wreaking-havoc-russian-vehicles-200986

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2

Image:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2

https://networkedinternet.blogspot.com/

Are we living in a simulation?

 

 

The origin of the "simulated reality hypothesis" is in "Plato's cave"

When we think about physical simulations we forget one thing. If the person is living the entire life in that kind of simulation that person believes that the simulation is reality. The idea of this type of simulation is taken from Plato's cave.

If some people are living their entire life in the cave. They think that the cave is an entire world. Those people who live in their cave think. The bizarre shadows that they see on the wall are real creatures. So why those cave people would live in their caves? And don't come out to see are those creatures real? 

The cave offers a safe and protective place. Of course, there can come the army of men. And they will destroy that place easily. But those cave people think that the cave is in the middle of the world. There is nothing that can harm them if they stare at the wall. 

They forget that the armies still exist even if they stare at the wall and deny the reality. The people in the cave are using filtered and selective information. And that thing makes those caves dangerous. Denying the threat doesn't mean that threat does not exist. 

When we think of things like asteroid impacts. They might not seem a big thing. If we compare them with conflicts. But the thing is that without depending on the conflicts on Earth those asteroids still exist. They still can impact our planet. There is still the same probability to impact an asteroid. Even if there is some war going on. 

Are we living in a simulation? If we live in a simulation, why did somebody make that simulation? 

The thing, that fights against that conclusion is the motive for making that kind of complicated simulation. That kind of simulation requires extremely complicated algorithms. And it means that these kinds of things are not made just for fun. 

The major argument against allegations. That we are living in a simulation is the question, why would somebody make the virtual reality, where everybody lives? The thing is that we have the technology to make that kind of virtual reality. But why does somebody wants to close the entire human race to simulation? 

We can connect our cortex to computers and then use robots as external bodies. The BCI (Brain-Controlled Interface) can make brains interact with computers and we cannot see the difference between the real and virtual world. The thing is why would somebody make that thing? 

The movie "Matrix" brought that idea of simulated reality to the knowledge of a great audience. In that movie, the humans are hybridized with computers. The people are living in chambers and the matrix, ultimate virtual reality is making the virtual space where people are living. The idea of the Matrix is that when a human dies in virtual reality the computer will kill that person. 

Why are black cheeps allowed in the Matrix? 

The black cheep is the opponent to the white cheep. The white cheep is the thing that supports the majority. And the black cheep is the actor that mission is to bring discussions and criticism to decisions. Also, the mission of the black cheeps is to bring new and fundamental ideas for the society that is in the Matrix-movies the people who are connected with computers. 

There is a so-called "black cheep" paradox in Matrix-movie. Why those black lambs are allowed in Matrix? The main characters are the persons who are working in the secret underground resistance movement that purpose is to release people from the virtual reality simulation called "Matrix".  But where the computer requires those black cheeps? 

The black cheeps are needed to bring new ideas and new tactics to society. The thing is that the purpose of "black cheeps" is to criticize the majority. The idea is that there would also be another opinion and point of view than the only one that serves the majority. Also, majorities are making mistakes. And those mistakes can be fatal. 

If the majority is ordering to attack against some other state, there is the possibility that the opponent is stronger than expected. So the black cheeps mission is to ask: does anyone see the force of the opponent? Or are everybody just thinking that they can handle that problem? The thing is that when we are blinded to success we cannot see the risks or think the worst possible scenes. And one of them is that the opponent is not uncovering its all cards. 

When we are thinking about simulations we forget one thing. There are at least three types of simulations. 

1) The virtual-reality-based simulations

In those simulations, everything happens in the virtual world of the computer memories. Those kinds of simulations are like games. 

Some of them are made for fun. But some of them are created for training people. Like military commanders and surgeons for their missions. 

X) The mixed or enhanced reality simulations. 

In the most advanced of those simulations, the human senses are connected with robots. That means that the person senses and feels everything that robots see and feel. That allows using remote-controlled robots like remote bodies. 

But those simulations can be the network of simulators. That kind of system can use to simulate things like building sites, military operations, or car driving. In the building-site simulation, everything is needed in building sites, and then the operators can test things like cars how they fit in those simulations. 

2) Real-life simulations. 

The most well-known of those simulations are military exercises. But there are many more types of simulations like "lone island" simulations where people are going to lone islands and live in primitive conditions. 

Also, the closed-space simulations where people are living in isolated rooms or spaces for simulating the Mars flights are very good examples of physical simulations. 

In that kind of simulation, people are going somewhere. And they are acting as they should act in the real situation. 

https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/

Image) https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/

https://thoughtandmachines.blogspot.com/