Ouch.
This thread was written by someone, who has never heard of the ScanEagle, RQ-7B Shadow, or RQ-20 Puma, which are the US military UAVs comparable to the Orlan-10.
To compare the Orlan-10 to the MQ-1C Gray Eagle is like comparing a scooter to a truck.
russia says it built 1,000+ Orlan-10. Even if they built just half of that, then the loss of 50 isn't a problem for the russians, as there are at least 450 left.
The Orlan has a wingspan of 3.1m, is launched by catapult & lands by parachute.
2/n
The MQ-1C Gray Eagle has a wingspan of 17m - you need to place 5.4x Orlan-10 wings next to each other to get the wingspan of a Gray Eagle.
These are two entirely different systems for entirely different tasks. To compare these two makes no sense at all.
3/n
Then Trent writes: "US Army ... needs a drone 1/5 the cost, five times the numbers and about 70% the capability of a Grey Eagle."
The US Army already has such a drone. Since 2002. And 500+ pieces of it. The RQ-7B Shadow has a wingspan of 4.3m and s launched by catapult.
4/n
The US Army also has 325+ RQ-20 Puma, which has a wingspan of 2.8m and is launched by hand.
This is basic level information about the US Army. Every brigade has Puma and Shadow, and the combat aviation brigades have more Shadows and the Gray Eagles.
5/n
And the Marine Corps uses the Shadow, the Puma, and the ScanEagle. The ScanEagle has a wingspan of 3.1m and is launched by catapult too.
To dare fault the US Army for not having a drone like the Orlan-10 is not knowing anything about the US Army's equipment and drones.
6/n
Next Trent mentions the S-60 57 mm anti-aircraft gun as something to use to shoot down russian drones like the Orlan-10... which flies at 5,000m... while the S-60 can reach only to 4,000 with luck.
And if you open all 50 images of @oryxspioenkop's excellent list of
7/n
russian Orlan-10 loses you will see that most of the Orlan's came down undamaged. They fell out of the sky because they ran out of fuel, flew out of range, or got jammed by the Ukrainians.
8/n
Last but not least... the whole Hellfire missiles on the Gray Eagle vs. the MAM glide bombs on the TB2 part... that makes no sense... because again two systems are compared that have different uses and exist for different reasons. And the TB2 part totally ignores the
9/n
development of the TB2 successor Akıncı, which is even bigger than the Gray Eagle and carries up to 8x Hellfire clones.
Enough now. I know there are many twitter users, who know even more than me about the US Army's drones and I would love to hear their take on this topic.
10/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course russia can quickly seize the Suwałki Gap and cut of the Baltics from the rest of NATO... but have you had a look at Kaliningrad's border and the flat dry country beyond?
There are 9 Polish brigades in that area (and 11 in reserve, with 4 more forming). Sure russia 1/5
could move 50,000+ men to Kaliningrad to secure the border or build a defence line along the Pregoła river... but those need to be supplied from Belarus, which also is easily invaded unless russia sends 50,000+ troops to secure its flank there. A buildup of 200,000+ russian
2/5
troops in Belarus would be noticed by NATO (and ordinary people in Belarus, who would upload 100s of videos of the arriving russians).
In summary the main risk isn't that russia suddenly seizes and fortifies the Suwałki Gap... the main risk is that russia starts building up
3/5
The North Atlantic - one of the key battles in a russia-Europe war.
If Europe is defeated here, which with Europe's current forces and capabilities, is almost certain to happen... then russia can nuke the UK without fear of retaliation.
This will be a unsettling thread:
1/40
This battle will be very different from the battles in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, which I discussed in an early thread, which is linked below.
To understand the North Atlantic Battle we need to look at Imperial Germany's WWI submarine campaign,
2 days ago I did a thread about the reasons russia can't defeat Ukraine and yet is still a deadly threat to Europe and NATO (link to the thread the next tweet).
Today I will talk about three of the fronts of a russia-Europe war: 1) Black Sea 2) Baltic Sea 3) North Atlantic
1/36
These three fronts will be air and sea battles, while Finland and the Baltics will be air and land battles; about which I will talk in another thread in the coming days.
I do not believe the US under control of Trump or Vance would come to the aid 2/n
• russia has no chance to defeat Ukraine
• russia is a deadly threat to NATO and the EU
Both of these are true... because as of 2025 Ukraine fields a far more capable military than NATO's 30 European members combined (!).
Let me explain.
1/39
As of August 2025 russia fields more than 1,3 million troops; at least half of which are fighting in or against Ukraine.
Ukraine has an estimated 1 million troops... maybe even 1,1 million troops. NATO's European members have double that: some 2.2 million troops, but 2/n
(there is always a "but" with European militaries):
• with more than double the personnel European NATO members manage to field only 20% more combat brigades than Ukraine. Partly because Western navies and air forces are bigger, but mostly because in all European militaries 3/n
People forget that for most if its history Europe was much, much more militarized than even during the Cold War.
Italy, from the end of the Third War of Independence in 1866 to 1939 fielded always 360-400 battalions, which fell to 110-115 during the Cold War, as the US
1/14
backed its European allies with the its massive air force. Today Italy fields 41 battalions (infantry, tanks, recon, special forces, rangers).
Likewise the British Army fielded for most of its history (especially after the 1908 Haldane reforms) 450-480 battalions, which came 2/n
in three types: 150-160 regular battalions (of which a third was always in India), around 100 reserve battalions to provide replacements for the regular battalions, and 200-220 territorial battalions, which (at least on paper) could not be deployed overseas. The British Army
3/n
And this is how Berlin would look like 3 days after putin attacks Europe... because Germany doesn't have the air defence ammo to defend any of its city for more than 2 days.
1/12
This is Copenhagen.
And this is how Copenhagen would look like the morning after putin attacks Europe... because Denmark doesn't have any air defence to defend itself.
2/12
This is Paris.
And this is how Paris would look like a day after putin attacks Europe... because France only has SAMP/T air defence systems, which is as of now has very limited capabilities against ballistic missiles.
3/12