Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
May 23, 2022 10 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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.

1/n
Let's dissect Trent's thread:

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
 

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Mar 17
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:

Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10 Image
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production
3/n Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 8
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9 Image
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 8
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
Read 5 tweets
Mar 4
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.

Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .

European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
Read 10 tweets
Feb 21
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:

• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).

russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.

With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:

Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25 Image
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(