“China has the US drone industry by the components (balls)”

George Washington crossing the Delaware River lights the sky during a Sky Elements drone light show in an undated photo. (Sky Elements via Bay City News)

The United States has long been at the forefront of technological innovation, but one key sector where the U.S. lags significantly behind is in the drone industry. Currently, China’s DJI dominates the consumer and professional drone market, owning as much as 80% of the global market share. This overwhelming dominance poses not just a competitive challenge but also a national security risk. The U.S. must prioritize the establishment of a domestic drone industry to secure technological autonomy and protect sensitive data. However, this won’t be possible without a well-thought-out strategy that addresses the supply chain and market leadership issues. Here’s how the U.S. can jump-start its domestic drone industry.

1. You Can’t iterate faster than China without a DJI Competitor

DJI’s market leadership is built on its ability to rapidly iterate its technology, bringing new models and innovations to market faster than its competitors. This agility allows DJI to consistently maintain its competitive edge while collecting massive amounts of data, which is then used to improve future products. More concerningly, this drone data, collected over U.S. soil by DJI drones, is accessible by Chinese authorities, creating significant security vulnerabilities.

Without a home-grown competitor to DJI, the U.S. will always be playing catch-up. American companies struggle to iterate at the same pace due to limitations in both supply chain efficiency and production cost. Even firms like Skydio and other U.S.-based drone startups cannot scale quickly enough to meet market demands because they rely on key components sourced from China, limiting their independence. If the U.S. is to successfully break away from this cycle, it needs to create an environment where iteration and innovation can flourish domestically, unencumbered by supply chain constraints or external data risks.

2. You can’t build Drones without China: Fixing the Supply Chain

The uncomfortable reality is that most drones, even those designed and assembled in the U.S., rely heavily on Chinese components. China currently controls key aspects of the supply chain for microelectronics, motors, sensors, and batteries—components essential for drone manufacturing. This stranglehold over critical components not only gives China a substantial advantage in cost and production scale but also makes it incredibly difficult for American companies to compete without relying on Chinese suppliers.

To break free from this dependence, government intervention is crucial. The U.S. must incentivize the near-shoring, re-shoring, and friend-shoring of critical component manufacturing. Policies that support domestic manufacturing of microelectronics, motors, and other essential drone parts are needed. This can be done through tax breaks, research and development grants, and investment in domestic infrastructure. Moreover, collaboration with allied nations to build a supply chain that does not involve China could help diversify sourcing and reduce dependence on a single foreign power.

An additional layer of complexity lies in the labor and environmental regulations that make it difficult for the U.S. to compete with China’s low-cost production model. However, with proper investment in automation and next-generation manufacturing techniques, the U.S. could reduce costs while maintaining high-quality production standards. An aggressive push to develop U.S.-based suppliers and manufacturers would be a significant step toward breaking China’s chokehold on the drone supply chain.

3. Becoming the Market Leader: Re-shoring the Supply Chain and Outpacing DJI

The key to building out a domestic drone industry is to take over DJI’s position as the market leader. However, this cannot be accomplished without taking control of the supply chain. To do so, the U.S. must prioritize re-shoring and near-shoring, bringing critical drone component production back to U.S. soil or to trusted allies. Friend-shoring with countries like Japan, South Korea, and European allies can help diversify the supply chain and ensure that the U.S. is not vulnerable to supply disruptions.

To effectively compete with DJI, the U.S. must also foster a vibrant ecosystem of drone-related companies that can work together to innovate rapidly. This requires not only investment in existing drone startups but also collaboration between tech companies, universities, and government agencies. A public-private partnership approach, similar to what was seen in the early days of the space race, could give U.S. companies the edge they need to overtake DJI in terms of innovation, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.

Additionally, leveraging existing tech talent and capabilities in AI and machine learning would allow U.S. drone manufacturers to introduce smarter and more capable drones. This would help the U.S. surpass DJI, not just in hardware but in software and autonomous operations. However, none of this will be possible unless the U.S. establishes a stable and secure supply of drone components that are independent of Chinese influence.

Conclusion

To jump-start a domestic drone industry, the U.S. must address both the supply chain and market leadership challenges posed by DJI. This requires strategic government intervention in supply chain development, with a focus on near-shoring, friend-shoring, and re-shoring of critical drone components. Only then can the U.S. foster a competitive environment where domestic companies can iterate faster, innovate more effectively, and ultimately take over DJI’s dominant position in the consumer and professional drone market. Without such a concerted effort, the U.S. will continue to trail behind China in this vital industry.

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/china-has-the-us-drone-industry-by

Comment: This is a continuation on the subject of drones. It’s about the elephant in the room… or the panda bear in the room. DJI and China have been the world leaders in the field for as long as I can remember. Both Ukraine and Russia were using a lot of DJI drones in their war and, as far as I know, still are. Security experts in the US have bemoaned the omnipresence of DJI drones in the US, especially in police and security applications.

The author of this article, Benjamin Cook, suggests doing what’s necessary to replace DJI as the market leader. That’s a fairly tall order and will, as Cook says, require changes in rules, regulations, marketing practices and probably tariffs. He also suggests pairing with a trusted ally to accomplish the same thing. This is something we can accomplish now. The Ukrainian drone industry. The linked NPR article describes the state of the Ukrainian drone industry. It’s very well developed, but Kyiv needs foreign investment to keep it developing. And since it is such a distributed industry, it should be easier to expand the Ukrainian model to Europe and the US than trying to replicate a DJI.

TTG

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/13/nx-s1-5147284/ukraine-drones-russia-war

This entry was posted in China, Technology, The economy, TTG. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to “China has the US drone industry by the components (balls)”

  1. Lars says:

    That is an excellent reason for helping Ukraine and eventually get it into EU and NATO. I do agree that a focused and concentrated effort is overdue for the US in this area. If we could put a couple of guys on the moon, we should be able to do this.

    • Fred says:

      This is an excellent reason to deploy our conventional armed forces to Europe and engage the Russian Federation in combat directly. The soon the better. Just because Ukraine has already defeated Russia, as we’ve been told repeatedly, is no reason to wait. Between Bidenomics and Kamala’s leadership next term mean we have nothing to worry about.

    • English Outsider says:

      Lars – EU and NATO membership for remnant Ukraine?

      I’m no fan of the EU but nevertheless, getting remnant Ukraine into the EU has some pluses.

      Remnant Ukraine badly needs subsidy in the long term just to keep it going. And the corruption and maladministration would have to diminish were it subject to even a degree of EU oversight. Then there’s the moral effect. Me, I believe the promise of peace and prosperity the EU holds out is hot air but that’s a minority view. For vast numbers of people in Europe that promise is the big attraction and that would be so for many in the west of the old Ukraine. Galicia and round that way at least would like to be in Borrell’s garden.

      Minuses. The really hard line ultras, those who believe Ukraine is the last bastion of the pure white race, not only don’t like the Russians. They regard the Europeans as decadent or degenerate as well. After the war those ultras will be in Germany or Canada but I don’t know how much of that attitude has been inculcated in the young. If it has been to any degree not all in Western Ukraine would welcome entrance to the EU.

      The EU farmers, notably those in Poland and France, would not agree to seeing the farming subsidies directed at Ukrainian farmers rather than at them. We’re already seeing protests at the importation of Ukrainian grain so we’d likely see more protest at Ukrainians getting the subsidies instead of the current recipients. Then there are other local political difficulties. Berlin/Brussels would have to twist a lot of arms.

      There’s a defence component in EU membership that most don’t know about. Most including Putin, seems, to judge from some recent statements of his. The Russians would find out about that component soon enough if EU membership for Ukraine looked like being a realistic prospect and they could well block EU membership for that reason.

      Final point. Berlin/Brussels is in reality blowing cold on the idea. We have no crystal ball but EU membership for Ukraine is therefore going to be promises, promises, but unlikely to go further than that. Not on any timescale relevant here.

      NATO membership the Russians would not consent to. Don’t need any crystal ball for that. Could it be done without Russian consent?

      NATO is popularly supposed to be a rock solid defence union. An attack against one is an attack against all and that’s that. In fact it’s no such thing – look at the treaty itself and there’re enough holes in it to drive a bus through.

      https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

      But it’d look foolish to extend NATO protection to a new member unless that protection meant something, so getting remnant Ukraine in NATO would in practice commit us all to defending it against the Russians.

      Defending it with what? The Europeans are fresh out of armaments and can’t really be said to have functioning armies, not armies that could send in a useful expeditionary force to hold back the Russians.

      The US? That’s low on armaments too and it’d be an enormous job for the US to send the necessary amount of troops over. Probably impossible even if a great national effort were made and there’s been no sign of that degree of commitment so far. Besides, “no boots on the ground” was what President Biden said at the start. He’ll hold to that, and if he didn’t another Yavoriv would await his forces. We’re getting our mercs and such like chewed up at the moment so we won’t send our regulars in, not in any quantity.

      Boils down to nuclear, then. Is Washington prepared to extend its nuclear umbrella to Kiev? That’s what this discussion of getting Ukraine into NATO is all about in practice.

      Of course Washington isn’t prepared to do that! Can you imagine President Biden pressing the button if Russia were to continue fighting? Would he go nuclear for Pokrovsk?. Or for Kharkov or Odessa if the Russians were to decide to go there? Silly question. He wouldn’t even press that button for Lvov. Washington cannot extend NATO protection to Kiev and the talk of its doing so is yet more hot air.

      Such foolish talk is merely engaged in for the purpose of keeping the Kiev forces fighting. Preferably until January so the Biden administration doesn’t suffer the reproach of having lost two wars. It’s pretty sadistic doing that you know, Lars. Like holding a bone up to a starving dog to keep it throwing itself against a fence it’s never going to get through. Is that what we should be doing?

      • TTG says:

        EO,

        I agree the idea of Ukraine being admitted to NATO anytime soon is a pipe dream. Hungary, Slovakia and maybe even Germany will hold that up. The EU is another story. Ukraine is already in accession negotiations. That process has accelerated since the Russian invasion.

        Russia does not have a say in Ukraine’s joining NATO or the EU, but her continuing invasion of Ukraine has definitely thrown a monkey wrench on the NATO side. NATO membership for Ukraine would immediately bring Article 5 consultations, a question NATO probably does not want to ask.

        If, by some miracle, Ukraine enters NATO, I could see the immediate implementation of a no fly zone over first western Ukraine, then up to the front line and soon after over all Ukrainian territory. NATO has over 3,000 interceptors and 1,000 ground attack aircraft which are integral parts of the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence system. That includes the two Aegis Ashore sites in Eastern Europe.

        • English Outsider says:

          TTG – that leaves the Europeans out of the reckoning. The White Tiger isn’t what it was, to speak figuratively.

          Our UK armed forces are still good, and the people in them. But as I’ve mentioned before, Ritter is now my deadly enemy for calling them the Benjamin Button of militaries. Truth hurts. What with procurement screw- ups and defence cuts we have let our armed forces run right down.

          Even more the continentals. The White Tiger, which I don’t believe we in the UK should be fighting alongside anyway – we didn’t last time round – is short of teeth. So we Euros rely on yours.

          In this connection I have just been puzzling over Zelensky’s big speech to the Verkhovna Rada. Why a speech like that at this time?

          https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/haj-nasha-spilna-robota-za-planom-peremogi-yaknajshvidshe-ob-93849

          Not sure what Zelensky’s doing or hoping for, making that speech, but one thing is clear. He still appears to want deep strikes. (“lifting our partner’s restrictions on the use of long-range weapons on all the territory of Ukraine occupied by Russia and on the territory of Russia – on enemy military infrastructure facilities, and providing Ukraine with appropriate long-range capabilities – missiles, drones and other means of destruction;”) He also argues for full US military backing.

          I don’t think this is practicable. Both those requests, if granted, would turn Europe into a new theatre of war. It would do so on two counts:-

          – The Russians have made it clear that use of European weapons for deep strikes could lead to retaliation inside Europe – say strikes on European armaments manufacturers or supply depots.

          – The wholesale American military support the Ukrainians want, which would have to be something on the scale you outline, would come in the main from American missile sites and airfields, again based within Europe itself. That would lead to further strikes within Europe.

          TTG – I do know my Europoodles. They’d collapse in a heap if ever war came to Europe itself.

          Even the Germans, the most confident of all of them at the start, are getting cold feet at the prospect of supplying Taurus for deep strikes. They know what might happen if that goes ahead. Putin and Lavrov have said quite clearly, “You feeling lucky, punk?” , and Barbarossa Scholz is saying “Er, no. I don’t think I am, really.”

          Berlin/Brussels, Westminster all in with them as well, put their money on the sanctions war. The sanctions war failing, they have no more shots in the locker. They certainly couldn’t take becoming a war zone for the Russians to lob their fancy rockets into.

          And it’s one thing triumphantly displaying wrecked Russian tanks outside the Russian Embassy in Berlin if it’s the Ukrainians who’ve gone to the trouble of taking them. Quite another to have a go at taking Russian tanks themselves.

          Europe does trade war. Trade war and bellicose talk. It wouldn’t know where to start if it had to fight a real war. It certainly has no intention of becoming a battleground and it’s about time the Euros stopped pretending to Zelensky that it has. Though I’d have thought “We are not Amazon” at Vilnius had given Zelensky a pretty broad hint already.

          • English Outsider says:

            Note. Victory Plan. Peace Plan.

            1. Victory Plan.

            https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/haj-nasha-spilna-robota-za-planom-peremogi-yaknajshvidshe-ob-93849

            Aim.

            ” The future for Ukraine is, without a doubt, to be a strong part of the global world, to stand as equals with all leading nations, to be a full-fledged member of the European Union and NATO. It is only fair for us to be there. Glory to Ukraine!”

            Timescale.

            “The urgency of the Victory Plan is now. These are points, most of which are thoroughly time-based.

            If we begin following this idea, this concrete Victory Plan right now, it may be possible to end the war no later than next year.”

            Means.

            “We all must change the circumstances so that Russia is forced into peace.”

            “It is realistic to defend our positions on the battlefield while also ensuring that the war is brought back to Russia’s territory; so that Russians feel what war is, and despite Russian propaganda begin to turn their hatred against the Kremlin.”

            “There is a clear list of weapons that can support such strength of our warriors. And thanks to the Kursk operation, we have seen that Putin does not have enough forces to hold on when we push, and we push really hard.”

            successful continuation of the operations of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine in the defined areas of the enemy’s territory in order to prevent buffer zones on our land;

            irreversible strengthening of the positions of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine and destruction of the Russian Federation’s offensive potential in the occupied territory of Ukraine;

            next is assistance from our partners in manning our reserve brigades for the Armed Forces of Ukraine;

            bringing Ukraine’s air defense system to a level sufficient, really sufficient, to protect our cities and villages from Russian missiles and enemy drones, and joint defense operations with our neighbors in Europe to shoot down Russian missiles and drones within the range of the partners’ air shields;

            as well as expanding operations involving our Ukrainian missiles and drones and investing in increasing their production in Ukraine;

            lifting our partner’s restrictions on the use of long-range weapons on all the territory of Ukraine occupied by Russia and on the territory of Russia – on enemy military infrastructure facilities, and providing Ukraine with appropriate long-range capabilities – missiles, drones and other means of destruction;

            “providing Ukraine with real-time satellite data and data obtained through other intelligence means.

            “Ukraine offers to deploy a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package on its territory that will be sufficient to protect Ukraine from any military threat posed by Russia and that will limit, limit as much as possible, the variability of Russia’s actions to such prospects: either join an honest diplomatic process to bring the war to a just end, or certainly lose the ability to continue an aggressive war as a result of Ukraine’s use of the provided deterrence package, according to Russia’s defined military objectives.

            “In other words, the deterrence package is the fact that Russia is either going into diplomacy or going… to lose its war machine.

            The purpose of these measures to defeat Russian by military means in order to force Russia to accept peace.”

            “Peace through strength.

            “That is why we have the Peace Formula. It is a guarantee of negotiations without forcing Ukraine into injustice. Ukrainians deserve a decent peace.

            “The Victory Plan will pave the way for this. The Victory Plan is a guarantee that the madmen in the Kremlin will lose the ability to continue the war. That is why the Victory Plan is a bridge to the implementation of the Formula, to the implementation of the Summit, and to honest diplomacy.”

            The nature of the peace indicated here:-

            “First, let’s recall that almost two years ago, at the G20 Summit in Indonesia, Ukraine proposed the Peace Formula. It is a strategy to end Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Ukrainians and restore justice for all our Ukrainian people based on the goals and principles of the UN Charter.

            “In two years, nearly 100 countries from all parts of the world have endorsed the Peace Formula.”

            The Indonesian peace formula requires return of all territory taken by Russian including Crimea,,reparations, and war crime trials. Wiki provides a useful brief summary:

            1. Nuclear safety, especially that of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

            2. Food security for Asian and African countries

            3. Energy security and restoration of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure

            4. Release of all prisoners and the return of Ukrainian children deported to Russia

            5. Restoration of the Russia–Ukraine border to that prior to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, in line with Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations

            6. Full withdrawal of Russian military forces from Ukraine and cessation of hostilities

            7. Prosecution of war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the creation of a special tribunal for Russian war crimes

            8. Assessment of ecological damage, including that caused by the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam; prosecution of those responsible; recovery and reconstruction

            9. Guarantees against future Russian aggression

            10. A multilateral peace conference with a legally binding international treaty.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%27s_Peace_Formula

            On 1, According to later statements from Ukrainian officials the attacks on the ZNPP were carried out by Ukraine using US weapons. Attacks on the Kursk NPP using French weaponry were later alleged by the Russians. I believe those Russian allegations to be true and further, that an aim of the Kursk offensive was to seize control of the KNPP in order to use it as a bargaining chip. On the ZNPP, Grossi undertook the unenviable task of attempting to ensure the safety of an NPP in a war zone. His failure to accomplish that task is detailed elsewhere and the subsequent attacks on the ZNPP, some recent, are a direct consequence of that failure. I doubt therefore that Item 1 would be included now in a hypothetical peace plan.

            Nor Item 2. Most of the grain seems to have gone to the EU to be used as animal feed. The “Grain deal” enabled the use of the Black Sea for military purposes, those purposes now partially frustrated by Russian missile attacks on grain ships transporting weapons and ammunition to Ukraine via the Black Sea.

            Nor Item 7. The worst war crime was at Bucha. This looks to have been improvised Ukrainian atrocity theatre investigation into which was frustrated at the UN Security Council. It is unlikely that investigation would now be permitted by Ukraine or by the West in the event, also unlikely, of this peace deal being accepted..

            Those items apart, the peace deal proposed boils down to a a demand that Russia withdraws to the pre-2014 border and pays reparations.

            That demand enforced by means of a military defeat of Russia to be arrived at by means of greatly increased Western aid and military assistance.

            ……………………………………….

            I don’t think a Victory Plan like that could work. It demands weaponry and ammunition from the West that the West simply doesn’t have.

            Zelensky is not alone in failing to recognise that the West is out of the necessary military equipment. The Western politicians and journalists also take no account of that lack. This victory plan, like the all the other option discussed ad infinitum in the West – DMZ, Korean solution, two Germanies solution, Japanese solution – is based on the fallacy that it is still in our power to continue supplying military equipment in the quantities needed.

            Also impracticable is the call for direct Western military intervention. As discussed above, the only practicable means of forcing the Russians to accept Western terms is the threat of nuclear. But the Russians have made it clear that they will not be swayed by that threat, Also as discussed above, neither President Biden nor his successor will risk making that threat.

            ……………………

            This Victory Plan, or any other Western plan for defeating the Russians one sees put forward, doesn’t work. Such discussion as I have come across on the reasons for putting it forward shows two schools of thought.

            Some assert that this is a last ditch attempt by Zelensky to gain the Western support he was promised a year or more ago. Back then the talk was “as long as it takes” and Zelensky was given standing ovations throughout the West. After Istanbul Zelensky was persuaded to keep fighting by the promise of unlimited Western support. So this Victory Plan speech is no more that Zelensky calling in his debts. Calling for the support the West promised him.

            But Kiev has known long since that western support was simply not there to give. The Ukrainian sites and media have indicated that for a year or more. So others assert that Zelensky is saying to the West – you can’t help me. You were never able to. So we must surrender.

            Me, I reckon Zelensky’s getting in early for what will be, if he’s lucky, his Ghani moment. Blame apportioned elsewhere. Face saved. Just part of the “blame Game” we’re seeing in full flow across the entirety of the West.

            Also to assist his US backers by concealing the full extent of the disaster until after the US Presidential election. Or until after January, if it can be managed.

            That takes me back to the comments I’ve been submitting to this site since before Colonel Lang’s death. It is wrong that so many must die merely to fit in with US internal electoral imperatives. The horrors of Gaza now underline that reproach in red.

  2. Fred says:

    Bidenomics hasn’t fixed the supply chain? Pelosi did what during her speakership to reduce regulations and incentivize investment and innovation? Didn’t Obama invest in battery manufacturing years ago? Solyndra anyone? But a great article on why federal spending is essential, and by default shows how Europe can not innovate or develop these technologies.

  3. Jovan P says:

    Any production of weapons and etc. located in Ukraine will be targeted by Russians. To talk about some kind of industry is very questionable.

    I think that the Ukrainians still don’t have fiber optic drones. The Russians do.

  4. Rob Waddell says:

    Kia ora TTG..
    I think the USA has as much chance of being a competitive DJI drome manufacturer as it is becoming a leading manufacturer of any home appliance, motor vehicles or home and personal electronic items; that is zero.

    Although not lacking in technical innovation as you mention, USA’s manufacturing sector has been gutted by high compliance and labour costs like most western nations. USA’s last positive trade balance period was between 1880 and 1970, the ‘golden age’ of low-cost materials, manufacturing advancements and supreme technical innovation. Sure, you can make your ‘own realities’ but you’re going broke doing it.

    Then why do you need to compete with China in drone manufacture? The real benefit of drones is their application not the device itself. The warfare component is tiny compared to uses in agriculture, law enforcement and entertainment, all of these are positives compared to warfare’s negatives. The same goes with other ‘things we’re gonna put tariffs on’ mentality.

    Think about JKF’s ‘ We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. ’ How about matching the $B19 sent to Israel 2023 -2024 as a prize for USA entrepreneurs, startups and universities to develop nuclear fusion techniques, small and safe fusion reactors and other supreme technical innovations.

    That’s real hard stuff.
    rw

    • TTG says:

      Kia ora Rob,

      Cool, I learned something new today. Thanks.

      I don’t think we’re as done as a manufacturing country as you may think. There are two new aluminum plants under construction in Alabama and Kentucky. There are the first new plants to be built in over forty years. DOE is involved in at least one of them to develop a more energy efficient plant.

      On the nuclear power front, the USG is now investing $900 million in the development of SMRs. This isn’t the fusion moonshot, but it’s a start.

      • frankie p says:

        “I don’t think we’re as done as a manufacturing country as you may think.”

        Let’s stick to the facts here. In May, Biden slapped the import tariffs on selected Chinese goods. Let’s look at the recent stats for manufacturing of these goods.

        Biden (tweet) on X: “I just imposed a series of tariffs on goods made in China.
        25% on steel and aluminum,
        50% on semiconductors,
        100% on EVs,
        And 50% on solar panels.
        China is determined to dominate these industries.
        I’m determined to ensure that America leads the world in them.”
        Facts: Steel production 2022: China: 1.01 billion tons (54% of global steel production)
        US: 80.5 million tons (40% decline since 1973)
        Aluminum Production: 2020: China: 37 million metric tons (#1 in the world)
        US: 1 million metric tons primarily aluminum (#9 in the world, behind Norway but ahead of Iceland (population 382,000)
        EVs: China: 60% of global EV sales: over 50% of global EVs on roads in China
        (China controls 80% of global EV supply chain)
        Solar Panel Production: China: 77.8% of global production
        US: 1.9% of global production
        Vietnam: 6.4% of global production (over 3 times the US!)

        • Eric Newhill says:

          frankie p,
          Yup, you’re right; the unions and quest for social justice has ruined America. The South should have won. If we still had expendable slaves we could compete with China. We should have kept the damn inscrutable ant people hooked on opium and in the rice field, but the midwits with Ivy League pedigrees at the CIA thought it would be best to help them industrialize. Why then they’d become good capitalists and global trade partners.

          Instead they’d stayed dictatorial in the extreme and stole the innovations that come from our freedom – and that we let them steal. Who would have guessed? Certainly not an Ivy League CIA “genius”.

          This is why China is always propagandizing the population of the US to act in ways that would not be permitted in China and would, in fact, be deemed idiotic and defeatist by the CCP. God I hate those bastards and their useful idiots in the US. They even appear in forums like this one spouting that nonsense.

          Meanwhile, corporate raiders, like Mitt Romney, profited from helping the Chinese become westernized per CIA mastermind plans. Guys like him helped export US jobs and knowledge with Federal govt blessings.

          Chinese steel is garbage, btw.

          None if this had to happen. It was the arrogant and blind being led by the greedy. That is what the US federal government gets us. If only we had top down authoritarians like China, working on 25 year plans and receiving a bullet in the head for screw-ups and gross corruption.

          Nice that you gloat, like a Chinese, at China’s supposed victory. IMO, you are in for a rude awakening.

  5. Augustin L says:

    Will there be a viable Ukraine in 2 years ? Build high tech industry in a country that lost 80%+ of its energy generation capacity ? No wonder the USA is losing across the board, financialization and wishful thinking don’t stand up against the laws of physical economy… Now free marketeers and reactionaries want big government to regulate and cut free lunch for cartels and monopolies ? Delorable maggots despise dirigisme and will tell you it’s nothing short of communism. The jig is up, can’t lead a dead horse to water…

    • English Outsider says:

      Augustin L – I don’t think the jig’s up for the US. There are clear signs that the economic orthodoxy that has been its downfall is now being reconsidered. That would certainly be attempted by Trump, who now states that “tariff” is his favourite word: and the need to bring the supply chain back home if only for purposes of defence will have to be recognised even should his opponent be successful.

      That need will have to be recognised in general. Old fashioned balance of payments imperatives will see to that. And this sort of sloppy accounting, if it’s half as bad as Khairullin maintains, will have to be tightened up:-

      https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/the-big-plan-for-victory-over-the

      If other branches of the administration are as sloppy then you’re in trouble, but there is nothing fundamentally or irretrievably wrong with the US economy, nothing that can’t be put right by sound management. No country that can fuel and feed itself need be down and out. Not even the UK, where circumstances are by no means as favourable, need be condemned to further decline. The US certainly is not.

      It may seem an impossible task at present, to get shot of the freeloaders and second-raters that now comprise your political and administrative classes, but there is no law that says you have to be ruled by them for ever.

  6. Yeah, Right says:

    The author correctly identifies the main problem: China’s stranglehold on the supply chain of components used to make drones.

    I don’t doubt that the USA can become a significant player in the assembly of drones – after all, as you rightly point out Ukraine is.

    But without its own supply chain both countries would be mere box-droppers, and therefore highly vulnerable to China sanctions.

    Because building a factory to do final assembly is the easy bit.

    Anyone can do that, even Ukraine.

    But building the supply chain that makes all the components that you assemble into a drone is the hard part.

    China took decades to do that.

    It would take the USA at least as long. Probably longer, since the US industrial are is not as diverse nor as big as China’s.

    • elkern says:

      Beneath/behind the problem of “China’s stranglehold on the supply chain of components” (and the materials used to make those components, and everything else!) is the USA’s experiment with NeoLiberal economics for the last several decades. We – or rather Wall Street – lent China a few $T to build that supply chain, because it was more profitable than paying US (Union) workers.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        What is past is past.

        The Chinese understood perfectly well that if the West was going to relocate all their factories to China then they would need to build up all the (very unsexy) supply chain stuff that goes with it: the mines to extract the raw materials, the smelters that would turn that raw materials into something usable, the subcontractors and subassembly companies to make the components, the roads and shipping to tie it all together and (never forget this) the Universities that can produce the skilled scientists and engineers that can make all this work.

        Without committing themselves to doing all that then the relocation of factories to China would be a complete disaster.

        So that’s what they committed themselves to doing, and if Wall Street provided the funding (no idea, I’ll take your word for it) then that is neither here nor there: it wasn’t Wall Street driving this process, it was more a case of Wall Street profiting from it.

        But this was all hard work – real heavy-lifting from the Chinese – and it is all the stuff that is lost in the cheap point-scoring nonsense being spouted by Washington politicians.

        Increased tariffs on Chinese imports is NOT going to bring factories back to the USA, because the USA has allowed all that supply-chain stuff wither on the vine.

        If the tariffs are going to do anything it is going to move the final-assembly to Mexico or some other country. They will still be Chinese-owned factories, and they’ll be “efficient” because the Chinese will be able to supply the needed material because (gosh, who would have thunk it?) the Chinese will still be using their supply-chain dominance to feed the necessary stuff in one end so that the finished product can come out the other end.

        And all this talk of companies moving their “manufacturing” out of China to (say) Vietnam is equally delusional, because if they do that TO CUT OUT THE CHINESE then it will fail.

        Because (have I mentioned this? I think I have) the Chinese own the supply-chains, and if they are cut out of the circuit then they are going to refuse to supply the necessary materials that go into those factories.

        After all, what incentive do that have to do anything else?

  7. d74 says:

    US excess.
    The Guardian says stealth bombers dropped bombs on the Houthis.

    This is an official Pentagon news, perhaps intended to boost the morale of US Navy troops.

    B2 Spirit price, about 3 billion dollars.
    As far as I’m concerned, this kind of news – a big gun to kill a fly – is a real turn-off. The goal is slipping away.

  8. walrus says:

    Pardon me while I stop laughing!

    So there you have it folks, it’s finally out in the open – the utter stupidity of successive American Administrations and the entire American ruling class and its intelligentsia displayed for all to see…. it’s pathetic.

    The official American view: China is a one party communist state where there are no freedoms. It’s defence forces are made up of orc – like conscripts. Everyone is corrupt and china gets ahead by copying the West and running slave labor in primitive factories. Everything Chinese is inferior to American products. Oh yes!…. and they hate our freedoms.

    But now we are whining about drones, and how China is the market leader, innovating at high speed with product life cycles measured in months. We can’t compete they moan.

    Would it surprise you to know that for China to innovate as fast as it is, then your model of China is completely and totally wrong? And you just proved it? You see, you cannot innovate without a very well educated workforce who are motivated and are operating in a free and intellectually stimulating environment – the antithesis of what is officially portrayed.

    Same with Russia, no Orcs there either. Orcs can’t make hypersonic missiles or SU57’s.

    So now lets have a good laugh as we try and out innovate China and Russia – aint going to happen. Innovation means having to ask uncomfortable questions and listening to nerds with bad senses of humour and BO – the sort of unwoke physically disgusting types. It also means letting Engineers manage themselves and cutting the finance types down to size.

    Your craappy healthcare and education systems to name a few, won’t support innovative industries….ends

    • TTG says:

      walrus,

      China can do some real innovation. Their EV industry attests to that. But Russia? Their Academy of Sciences has been gutted. Their industries are rife with corruption. They built a few Su-57s and can’t build anymore because they lack the Western components needed to complete them. And where is their much vaunted Armata T-14? The unstoppable Kinzhal is routinely stopped by the Western Patriot. They can produce some good, solid stuff, but I wouldn’t trade their innovativeness for ours. Nor would I trade their orc army for ours, especially in the state it finds itself after two and a half years battling a much smaller Ukraine.

      • walrus says:

        Thank you for your reply TTG. From what I have seen, Russian engineering is as good as, or better than, American. I have seen considerable Aviation engineering and I like what I see. We tend to over complicate stuff, the Russians do elegant simplicity.

        However Russian production in my opinion, suffers from the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet state and its command economy as well as a bias against high tech in favor of simple stuff that the untrained can use.

        I have no idea as to the effectiveness of Russian current technology
        like the khinzal, Su57, tanks, etc.

        • TTG says:

          walrus,

          Soviet engineering was very good. The MiG-29 is supposedly one of the sweetest natural flying machines in service. It did not need computer adjusted fly by wire technology. Remember the cobra maneuver. I worked with Russian engineers in their Y2K preparations and was impressed with their ingenuity. As for their tanks, their elegant simplicity was “good enough” as long as you had plenty of them.

          A lot of the newer Russian tech ended up relying on Western tech due to corruption. Rather than developing the necessary homegrown components, the design bureaus bought Western tech and pocketed the R&D money.

    • Fred says:

      walrus,

      It is true the Haiti and Venezuela both have better education and health care systems than the US. When they cross to border they need no vaxxes nor to prove they have one to work (unlike a lot of blue states). Certainly none ever show up at an ER to get health care treatment (for free). They never need remedial education, their english is just perfect! Unlike the students educated in the unionized schools of Baltimore (thanks DeRay Mckesson (Trayvon is so forgotten already). As to China, well, that’s just proof that slave labor works great.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Apparently high levels of healthcare and health and education do not correlate with vibrant economies and a free society after all. Haiti and Venezuela are but two giant shit holes that illustrate that reality. No? Then why the hell do their people want to come here on the US tax payer’s back for $9/hr jobs?

        • Fred says:

          Eric,

          They come for hatred, bigotry, and systemic racism. Plus to live in a country run by literally Hitler.

  9. Yeah, Right says:

    TTG: “They built a few Su-57s and can’t build anymore because they lack the Western components needed to complete them. ”

    Simply untrue. The Russian government has this…. bizarre…. idea that they don’t purchase military equipment that doesn’t satisfy the specifications.

    In the case of the Su-57 it is the engines. Current Su-57 airframes are fitted with a derivative of the engine used in the Su-35 (the AL-41F1), whereas the specifications called for the use of the more advanced Saturn AL-51.

    Call the Kremlin crazy, but they insist on slow-walking the procurement of the Su-57 until the specified engine is ready for service.

    Crazy heh? If it was Washington and the Pentagon they’d be buying the aircraft even though it isn’t ready (ahem, we’ve seen this rodeo with the F-22 and the F-35).

    It isn’t “western sanctions” that is slowing Su-57 production, it is prudent purchasing practices.

    TTG: “And where is their much vaunted Armata T-14?”

    Again, the Russians don’t rush new designs to the battlefield. They much prefer that when it does hit the battlefield it is fully functional and cost-effective.

    Unlike western countries that rush production so that their MIC can rake in the profits.

    TTG: “The unstoppable Kinzhal is routinely stopped by the Western Patriot”

    Complete and utter BS. Honestly, if you believe that then you will believe anything.

    • TTG says:

      Yeah, Right,

      If you want to call evading Western sanctions to purchase needed CNC machines and other electronic components “prudent purchasing practices,” knock yourself out. In the same vein, if believing the Kinzhal is invincible lets you sleep at night, go for it.

      • Fred says:

        TTG,

        Evading Western sanctions? How dare they not do what they were told by the “West”. Our best and brightest couldn’t see that would be exactly what would happen? Thank Goodness Ukraine has won on the battlefield just like we’ve been getting told for two years.

        • James says:

          Fred and TTG,

          In a few years Chinese CNC machines will be world class and Russia won’t have to evade sanctions anymore. The sanctions strategy is going to blow up in our face big time.

          I think Russia looks a lot like what the USA would look like if USA had not exported all of its manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China – fewer world class firms but less wealth inequality and a prospering middle class.

          • Fred says:

            James,

            CNC machines? LOL they make plenty of capable CNC machines. You are way behind the times with that almost century old tech

      • Yeah, Right says:

        TTG: ” In the same vein, if believing the Kinzhal is invincible lets you sleep at night, go for it.”

        https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/fis-import/1f9c7f5f-15d2-45c4-8b85-9bb550cd449d-Kiel_Report_no1.pdf

        Ukraine air-defense has a 4% success rate against Iskander missiles.
        They CLAIM a 25% intercept rate against the Kinzhal, but since a Kinzhal is simply an air-launched Iskander that claim is beyond ludicrous.

        And as that report points out: even the Ukrainians admit that they have to fire all 32 Patriot interceptors to achieve a single Kinzhal intercept.

        • TTG says:

          Yeah, Right,

          A lot of Kinzhals were shot down by Patriots because the Kinzhals were trying to take out the Patriots. When Kinzhals and Iskandars are employed against targets not protected by Patriots, they do fine. Ukraine only has 2, maybe 3 Patriot batteries.

          Ukraine does fire a lot of missiles to take out Kinzhals. Their one battery, at the time, took out 6 Kinzhals one night. If the russians were able to mount another one or two barrages of Kinzhals that night, I’m sure they would have been able to take out that Patriot battery when it ran out of missiles.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “Their one battery, at the time, took out 6 Kinzhals one night.”

            And one got through.

            I’ve pointed this out to you on previous occasions, but it is a acknowledged truth that the Kinzhal (like the Iskander) releases six – count ’em, six – decoys as it descends towards the target.

            The target on that occasion being, of course, that Patriot battery.

            So the Patriot crew sees seven “Kinzhals” comin’ right at ’em and so they fire all 32 interceptors at them.

            Result: one impact on the battery, not seven impacts on the battery.

            Deduction: Yah! We got six of them, and only one got through! Yah, we’re the best!

            Correction: Even if that Patriot crew were off at the pub having a few pints of the liquid amber there would have only been one impact, because…..

            …..one Kinzhal plus six decoys = one BOOM.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The kinzhals were tracked from the aircraft launch, well before decoys are launched. It was verified by DOD. The damage to one Patriot launcher was also verified, but it was minimal. The launcher was repaired on site.

          • TonyL says:

            TTG,

            “The kinzhals were tracked from the aircraft launch, well before decoys are launched. It was verified by DOD.”

            Assuming this info from the DOD (US?) is true. Those 6 missiles were all Kinzhals, then at the terminal phase, there were 42 targets (each launched 6 decoys). The Patriot battery had no chance of survival, and must empty all of its 32 interceptors.

            “The damage to one Patriot launcher was also verified, but it was minimal. The launcher was repaired on site.”

            I’d doubt this info is true.

            That’s not to say the Kinzhal is invincible (nothing is). Because the attack to take out AD systems like the Patriots should be a salvo of Kinzhals, or a mix of drones+cruise missiles+hypersonic missiles (such Kinzhals). It’s never a single Kizhal, except when the Russians attach weapon depots or command and control head quarters (they tend to use 2 Kinzhals for this).

          • TTG says:

            TonyL,

            Each Patriot launcher has 16 PAC-3 missiles. There are 8 launchers in a battery. The 16 May 2023 attack consisted of 6 Kinzhals, 6 Kalibr cruise missiles from ships in the Black Sea and 3 Iskanders fired from land. Ukraine claimed they were all shot down this time. DOD only confirmed the 6 kinzhals and one damaged Patriot launcher.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “It was verified by DOD.”

            *chortle*

            Because, of course, the DoD has no incentive to rain on the Ukrainian’s parade, do they?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “The kinzhals were tracked from the aircraft launch,”

            You really need to think a bit more deeply before making such claims, because that statement requires that the Russians had seven Mig-31K in the air that night launching Kinzhals at Kiev.

            Which, honestly, is a ludicrous claim.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Russia had 10 back in 2023. Now they have 5. Tu-22M3s and modified Su-34s can also fire the kinzhal.

  10. Fred says:

    Thank goodness neither Russia or China use un-hackable voting machine technology in their weapons systems.

Comments are closed.