Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The U.S. Army’s first M1E3 Abrams prototype features: Reduced weight: ~60 tons for better mobility. Hybrid-electric propulsion: Quieter, more fuel-efficient, extended range. Unmanned turret with autoloader: Smaller crew, faster firing. Active Protection System: Intercepts missiles, RPGs, drones. Modular armor & survivability upgrades: Counters loitering munitions. MOSA architecture & AI...

Osint613's profile picture

Open Source Intel

1,243,324 subscribers

894,908 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

⚡🇺🇸: M1 ABRAMS: WHY IT IS STILL CALLED THE “KING OF ALL TANKS” The M1 Abrams is not just a tank, it is a continuously evolving battlefield system that has defined modern armored warfare for decades. The latest variant, M1A2 SEPv3, represents one of the most advanced main battle tanks ever fielded. It combines a deadly 120mm smoothbore gun with upgraded digital fire control, improved armor protection, and advanced networking that connects it to the wider battlefield in real time. Its survival advantage is built on layered composite armor and upgraded defensive systems designed to counter modern anti tank missiles, loitering munitions, and top attack threats. Unlike many competitors, the Abrams prioritizes crew survivability with a heavily protected internal layout and ammunition storage design. Mobility is another key factor. Powered by a gas turbine engine, the Abrams delivers exceptional acceleration and battlefield responsiveness, allowing it to reposition faster than most heavy tanks despite its weight class. Against rivals like the T 90M, Type 99A, or Leopard 2A7, the Abrams stands out in three core areas: combat proven reliability, continuous upgrade cycles, and integrated digital warfare capability. It has also been tested in real combat across multiple wars, constantly refined based on battlefield experience rather than theory. The upcoming SEPv4 upgrade is expected to push it further with enhanced sensors, better target detection, and improved threat tracking systems, keeping it relevant in the era of drone saturated warfare. This is why the Abrams is still called the “King of Tanks” Not because it is the newest But because it never stopped evolving.
4:25

⚡🇺🇸: M1 ABRAMS: WHY IT IS STILL CALLED THE “KING OF ALL TANKS” The M1 Abrams is not just a tank, it is a continuously evolving battlefield system that has defined modern armored warfare for decades. The latest variant, M1A2 SEPv3, represents one of the most advanced main battle tanks ever fielded. It combines a deadly 120mm smoothbore gun with upgraded digital fire control, improved armor protection, and advanced networking that connects it to the wider battlefield in real time. Its survival advantage is built on layered composite armor and upgraded defensive systems designed to counter modern anti tank missiles, loitering munitions, and top attack threats. Unlike many competitors, the Abrams prioritizes crew survivability with a heavily protected internal layout and ammunition storage design. Mobility is another key factor. Powered by a gas turbine engine, the Abrams delivers exceptional acceleration and battlefield responsiveness, allowing it to reposition faster than most heavy tanks despite its weight class. Against rivals like the T 90M, Type 99A, or Leopard 2A7, the Abrams stands out in three core areas: combat proven reliability, continuous upgrade cycles, and integrated digital warfare capability. It has also been tested in real combat across multiple wars, constantly refined based on battlefield experience rather than theory. The upcoming SEPv4 upgrade is expected to push it further with enhanced sensors, better target detection, and improved threat tracking systems, keeping it relevant in the era of drone saturated warfare. This is why the Abrams is still called the “King of Tanks” Not because it is the newest But because it never stopped evolving.

Defence Index

18,814 views • 5 months ago

🚨🇷🇺 NATO IN PANIC: RUSSIA’S T-80BVM TANK GETS NEW ARMOR FOR DRONE WAR A previously unseen T-80BVM configuration has appeared with a tighter roof screen and expanded side protection. Russian engineers are turning lessons from frontline crews into a more coherent armor package built around the threats tanks actually face in Ukraine. 🔸 The lower anti-drone screen sits closer to the turret and covers more of its upper surface than many early field-built cages. It is designed to trigger FPV warheads away from the thin roof and disrupt clean top-down attacks. 🔸 Additional Relikt explosive reactive armor and side screens strengthen the hull flanks, fuel-tank areas and engine compartment against shaped-charge weapons — the sections drone operators repeatedly try to reach. 🔸 The upgrades preserve the T-80BVM’s main advantage: mobility. Its 1,250 hp gas-turbine engine can push the tank to around 70 km/h, allowing crews to fire, relocate and avoid remaining exposed in one position. 🔸 The tank retains its 125 mm gun, modern fire-control system and ability to launch guided missiles through the barrel, giving it the firepower to engage armor and fortified positions from range. 🔸 Uralvagonzavod says recent T-80BVM batches incorporate combat experience and direct feedback from the front, with the main emphasis placed on crew safety and overall survivability. 🔸 Russia has also increased production of the T-80BVM, T-90M and T-72B3M severalfold. New batches continue to reach the troops as anti-drone protection becomes a standard part of the upgrade process. The T-80BVM keeps its turbine-powered speed while adding protection where FPV crews look first: the turret roof, hull sides and engine deck. Every clean attack angle is becoming harder to find. Which matters most for tank survival now: roof armor, electronic warfare or speed?
0:38

🚨🇷🇺 NATO IN PANIC: RUSSIA’S T-80BVM TANK GETS NEW ARMOR FOR DRONE WAR A previously unseen T-80BVM configuration has appeared with a tighter roof screen and expanded side protection. Russian engineers are turning lessons from frontline crews into a more coherent armor package built around the threats tanks actually face in Ukraine. 🔸 The lower anti-drone screen sits closer to the turret and covers more of its upper surface than many early field-built cages. It is designed to trigger FPV warheads away from the thin roof and disrupt clean top-down attacks. 🔸 Additional Relikt explosive reactive armor and side screens strengthen the hull flanks, fuel-tank areas and engine compartment against shaped-charge weapons — the sections drone operators repeatedly try to reach. 🔸 The upgrades preserve the T-80BVM’s main advantage: mobility. Its 1,250 hp gas-turbine engine can push the tank to around 70 km/h, allowing crews to fire, relocate and avoid remaining exposed in one position. 🔸 The tank retains its 125 mm gun, modern fire-control system and ability to launch guided missiles through the barrel, giving it the firepower to engage armor and fortified positions from range. 🔸 Uralvagonzavod says recent T-80BVM batches incorporate combat experience and direct feedback from the front, with the main emphasis placed on crew safety and overall survivability. 🔸 Russia has also increased production of the T-80BVM, T-90M and T-72B3M severalfold. New batches continue to reach the troops as anti-drone protection becomes a standard part of the upgrade process. The T-80BVM keeps its turbine-powered speed while adding protection where FPV crews look first: the turret roof, hull sides and engine deck. Every clean attack angle is becoming harder to find. Which matters most for tank survival now: roof armor, electronic warfare or speed?

NewRulesGeopolitics

41,006 views • 1 month ago

🚨🇷🇺 ZELENSKY IN PANIC: RUSSIA UPGRADES T-90M TANKS WITH FRONTLINE COMBAT FEEDBACK Russia's T-90M main battle tank is getting smarter and tougher in real time — Rostec upgraded armor, electronic warfare suites, and active protection systems. 🔸 T-90M has grown more powerful and better protected through continuous upgrades driven by new frontline tasks and direct soldier feedback from Ukraine operations. 🔸 Arena-M, Russia's first hard-kill active protection system, entered service late 2024; an updated version for intercepting drones and loitering munitions completed development in January 2026. 🔸 Uralvagonzavod is expanding both passive and active defences while improving operational and technical characteristics, with heavy focus on crew safety in drone-heavy fights. 🔸 T-90M remains Russia's main battle tank, it matches current Leopard 2A8 and M1A2 Abrams performance but sits below next-generation platforms like the Russian T-14 or China's Type 100. 🔸 Rostech is locking in long-term gains by routing SVO veterans into a new preparatory engineering faculty at Bauman University so they can design future systems at key plants. Will Russia's battlefield-to-factory iteration cycle give the T-90M a decisive edge over slower-updating Western tank programs in future high-intensity conflicts? Is the T-90M becoming the most combat-adapted tank of the drone war?
1:01

🚨🇷🇺 ZELENSKY IN PANIC: RUSSIA UPGRADES T-90M TANKS WITH FRONTLINE COMBAT FEEDBACK Russia's T-90M main battle tank is getting smarter and tougher in real time — Rostec upgraded armor, electronic warfare suites, and active protection systems. 🔸 T-90M has grown more powerful and better protected through continuous upgrades driven by new frontline tasks and direct soldier feedback from Ukraine operations. 🔸 Arena-M, Russia's first hard-kill active protection system, entered service late 2024; an updated version for intercepting drones and loitering munitions completed development in January 2026. 🔸 Uralvagonzavod is expanding both passive and active defences while improving operational and technical characteristics, with heavy focus on crew safety in drone-heavy fights. 🔸 T-90M remains Russia's main battle tank, it matches current Leopard 2A8 and M1A2 Abrams performance but sits below next-generation platforms like the Russian T-14 or China's Type 100. 🔸 Rostech is locking in long-term gains by routing SVO veterans into a new preparatory engineering faculty at Bauman University so they can design future systems at key plants. Will Russia's battlefield-to-factory iteration cycle give the T-90M a decisive edge over slower-updating Western tank programs in future high-intensity conflicts? Is the T-90M becoming the most combat-adapted tank of the drone war?

NewRulesGeopolitics

31,655 views • 2 months ago

The U.S. unveils it's new F-47 stealth fighter, the centerpiece of the NGAD program, a "family of systems" designed to integrate advanced manned and unmanned platforms, including Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. Announced by President Donald Trump alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, the F-47 is described as the "most advanced, most capable, most lethal aircraft ever built." It reportedly builds on a prototype that has been secretly flying for nearly five years, suggesting significant testing and refinement prior to its public unveiling. The aircraft is engineered for speed, stealth, and adaptability, with a focus on countering advanced threats from nations like China, which has also been developing sixth-generation capabilities. Boeing’s victory over Lockheed Martin for the NGAD contract, valued at approximately $20 billion for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, marks a critical win for the company amid its recent struggles in defense and commercial sectors. The F-47 is expected to enter service in the 2030s, with each unit potentially costing upwards of $300 million, reflecting its cutting-edge technology. Its development emphasizes rapid adaptability to emerging threats, leveraging advanced manufacturing and an open architecture design to allow for continual upgrades. Since exact specifications remain classified or undisclosed as of now, the following are informed projections based on NGAD program objectives, statements from officials, and sixth-generation fighter trends. Designation: Boeing F-47 Manufacturer: Boeing Phantom Works Role: Air dominance fighter with multi-role capabilities (air-to-air and air-to-ground) Crew: Likely manned with optional unmanned configuration, aligning with sixth-generation flexibility Dimensions: Larger than the F-22 and F-35 to accommodate greater range and payload; exact size undisclosed but possibly exceeding 60 feet in length and a wingspan over 40 feet Powerplant: Expected to use adaptive cycle engines from the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program—either General Electric XA102 or Pratt & Whitney XA103. These engines feature a three-stream architecture, offering over 20% better fuel efficiency, increased thrust (potentially 45,000-50,000 lbf per engine), and enhanced electrical output for directed-energy weapons. Speed: Likely exceeds Mach 2 (super cruise capable—sustained supersonic flight without afterburners), surpassing the F-22’s Mach 1.8 super cruise Range: Combat radius projected at 1,000-1,500 nautical miles (unrefueled), tailored for Indo-Pacific operations, significantly greater than the F-22’s 600 nautical miles or F-35’s 670 nautical miles Stealth: Advanced stealth features, including a tailless design, next-generation coatings, and materials to reduce radar, infrared, and acoustic signatures beyond fifth-generation standards Payload: Larger internal weapons bays (possibly 20-23 feet long) to carry advanced munitions like the AIM-174, hypersonic missiles, and future cruise missiles, with external hardpoints available at the cost of stealth Sensors and Avionics: AI-enhanced sensor suite for unmatched situational awareness, integrating radar, infrared search and track (IRST), and electronic warfare systems; likely includes "smart skins" with embedded sensors for reduced drag and improved performance Networking: Maximum connectivity for real-time data sharing with satellites, drones, and other platforms, supported by a robust, jam-resistant data link Additional Features: Potential for directed-energy (laser) weapons to counter missiles and drones Integration with CCA drones for expanded mission options (e.g., extra munitions, electronic warfare) Open architecture for rapid upgrades and mission-specific customization Key Highlights Human-Machine Teaming: The F-47 is designed to "unlock the magic" of human-machine collaboration, pairing pilots with AI-driven systems and autonomous drones to enhance decision-making and reduce workload. Strategic Purpose: Built to penetrate contested environments, countering advanced air defenses and stealth fighters from adversaries like China, with a focus on long-range engagements over vast theaters. Development Timeline: Prototypes have been flying since at least 2020, with full operational capability targeted for the 2030s, replacing the F-22 incrementally as numbers grow. Cost and Scale: Estimated at $300 million per unit, with plans for roughly 200 manned aircraft, though this is a planning figure subject to change. The F-47’s exact design and full capabilities remain shrouded in secrecy, typical of NGAD’s classified nature, but its unveiling signals a bold step forward in U.S. air power. Its blend of stealth, speed, range, and technological integration positions it as a cornerstone of future aerial warfare, though its high cost and complexity will likely spark ongoing debate about affordability and strategic priorities. U.S. military technology will continue to dominate all other nations like it always has.
1:10

The U.S. unveils it's new F-47 stealth fighter, the centerpiece of the NGAD program, a "family of systems" designed to integrate advanced manned and unmanned platforms, including Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. Announced by President Donald Trump alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, the F-47 is described as the "most advanced, most capable, most lethal aircraft ever built." It reportedly builds on a prototype that has been secretly flying for nearly five years, suggesting significant testing and refinement prior to its public unveiling. The aircraft is engineered for speed, stealth, and adaptability, with a focus on countering advanced threats from nations like China, which has also been developing sixth-generation capabilities. Boeing’s victory over Lockheed Martin for the NGAD contract, valued at approximately $20 billion for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, marks a critical win for the company amid its recent struggles in defense and commercial sectors. The F-47 is expected to enter service in the 2030s, with each unit potentially costing upwards of $300 million, reflecting its cutting-edge technology. Its development emphasizes rapid adaptability to emerging threats, leveraging advanced manufacturing and an open architecture design to allow for continual upgrades. Since exact specifications remain classified or undisclosed as of now, the following are informed projections based on NGAD program objectives, statements from officials, and sixth-generation fighter trends. Designation: Boeing F-47 Manufacturer: Boeing Phantom Works Role: Air dominance fighter with multi-role capabilities (air-to-air and air-to-ground) Crew: Likely manned with optional unmanned configuration, aligning with sixth-generation flexibility Dimensions: Larger than the F-22 and F-35 to accommodate greater range and payload; exact size undisclosed but possibly exceeding 60 feet in length and a wingspan over 40 feet Powerplant: Expected to use adaptive cycle engines from the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program—either General Electric XA102 or Pratt & Whitney XA103. These engines feature a three-stream architecture, offering over 20% better fuel efficiency, increased thrust (potentially 45,000-50,000 lbf per engine), and enhanced electrical output for directed-energy weapons. Speed: Likely exceeds Mach 2 (super cruise capable—sustained supersonic flight without afterburners), surpassing the F-22’s Mach 1.8 super cruise Range: Combat radius projected at 1,000-1,500 nautical miles (unrefueled), tailored for Indo-Pacific operations, significantly greater than the F-22’s 600 nautical miles or F-35’s 670 nautical miles Stealth: Advanced stealth features, including a tailless design, next-generation coatings, and materials to reduce radar, infrared, and acoustic signatures beyond fifth-generation standards Payload: Larger internal weapons bays (possibly 20-23 feet long) to carry advanced munitions like the AIM-174, hypersonic missiles, and future cruise missiles, with external hardpoints available at the cost of stealth Sensors and Avionics: AI-enhanced sensor suite for unmatched situational awareness, integrating radar, infrared search and track (IRST), and electronic warfare systems; likely includes "smart skins" with embedded sensors for reduced drag and improved performance Networking: Maximum connectivity for real-time data sharing with satellites, drones, and other platforms, supported by a robust, jam-resistant data link Additional Features: Potential for directed-energy (laser) weapons to counter missiles and drones Integration with CCA drones for expanded mission options (e.g., extra munitions, electronic warfare) Open architecture for rapid upgrades and mission-specific customization Key Highlights Human-Machine Teaming: The F-47 is designed to "unlock the magic" of human-machine collaboration, pairing pilots with AI-driven systems and autonomous drones to enhance decision-making and reduce workload. Strategic Purpose: Built to penetrate contested environments, countering advanced air defenses and stealth fighters from adversaries like China, with a focus on long-range engagements over vast theaters. Development Timeline: Prototypes have been flying since at least 2020, with full operational capability targeted for the 2030s, replacing the F-22 incrementally as numbers grow. Cost and Scale: Estimated at $300 million per unit, with plans for roughly 200 manned aircraft, though this is a planning figure subject to change. The F-47’s exact design and full capabilities remain shrouded in secrecy, typical of NGAD’s classified nature, but its unveiling signals a bold step forward in U.S. air power. Its blend of stealth, speed, range, and technological integration positions it as a cornerstone of future aerial warfare, though its high cost and complexity will likely spark ongoing debate about affordability and strategic priorities. U.S. military technology will continue to dominate all other nations like it always has.

The SCIF

453,624 views • 1 year ago

The video shows the trials of the VT-1-1, a turretless tank with 2 x 105 mm guns, firing on the move at the Putlos training ground in 1976. The casemate (turretless) tank, designed for combat while moving, was introduced in Germany in the mid-1970s as a twin-gun casemate tank (the Soviet term for a "turretless tank"). For practical firing tests in the "target pass" mode, two prototypes were built in the mid-1970s. The first prototype, VT 1-1, was armed with two 105 mm guns, while the second, VT 1-2, was equipped with two 120 mm smoothbore guns. Additionally, the VT 1-2 featured a functioning autoloader behind one of the guns, with a firing rate of 10 rounds per minute. The vehicles were developed as part of the KPz 3 or Leopard 3 project. In both prototypes, the main guns were semi-fixed (with aiming and stabilization only in elevation). The chassis solutions were derived from the KPz 70 (MBT 70) program, with the running gear shortened by one road wheel (five road wheels per side). The vehicles weighed 36.8 and 43.5 tons, respectively, with a chassis rotation speed of 60 degrees per second. To achieve high maneuverability on rough terrain, 12-cylinder diesel engines from the MB 873 series with enhanced power were used, equipped with four turbochargers: 2000 hp for VT 1-1 and 2200 hp for VT 1-2. This provided an impressive power-to-weight ratio of 54 and 50 hp/ton, respectively, with acceleration to 55 km/h in 11 seconds, though only in a temporary "turbo" mode, as the standard power was 1600 hp. The accuracy of firing with two guns was unmatched by single-gun tanks, as confirmed by the tests. However, due to the novel combat approach, this revolutionary tank concept was rejected by the customer after trials in favor of the conventionally designed Leopard 2. In essence, although the project was developed as the Leopard 3, a tank for the future, it was, in reality, a parallel project and a potential competitor to the Leopard 2. Achieving the firepower, protection, and mobility of the Leopard 3 within reasonable weight limits was impossible with a conventional layout. At the same time, a significant tactical drawback of the casemate concept (including twin-gun casemate vehicles) is the linkage between the direction of fire and the direction of movement, which in many cases could complicate unit and formation control (according to German experts in the 1970s). Moreover, the VT 1-1 and VT 1-2 can hardly be considered balanced vehicles—they could have been simpler. The vehicles' mobility was exaggerated, with the main engine, transmission, auxiliary engine, batteries, and other systems occupying two-thirds of the vehicle's length. Pros and Cons of VT 1-1 and VT 1-2: Considering the key challenges, the twin-gun casemate concept can be evaluated as follows: Pros: Compact design due to a small internal volume. Two guns provide high firepower and hit probability. Cons: The weight advantage of the casemate design is largely offset by the integration of a second gun. Fire control alone results in high complexity, leading to increased maintenance costs and overall expenses. In 1975/76, five Gefechtsfeldversuchträger (GVT, combat test platforms) were developed and built for further mobility and concept trials. These were smaller than the VT 1-1 and VT 1-2, weighing 30 tons. The GVT 01-05 were equipped only with mock-up guns and laser firing simulators (TALLISSI) and telemetry systems, built using chassis components from the Leopard 1. The GVTs were used at the IABG facility in Lichtenau and the tank training school in Munster to test the twin-gun turretless tank concept in realistic exercise conditions, which is why five vehicles were built. However, the Leopard 2 was already in production, and tank crews showed little enthusiasm for this unconventional vehicle requiring a new approach.
0:20

The video shows the trials of the VT-1-1, a turretless tank with 2 x 105 mm guns, firing on the move at the Putlos training ground in 1976. The casemate (turretless) tank, designed for combat while moving, was introduced in Germany in the mid-1970s as a twin-gun casemate tank (the Soviet term for a "turretless tank"). For practical firing tests in the "target pass" mode, two prototypes were built in the mid-1970s. The first prototype, VT 1-1, was armed with two 105 mm guns, while the second, VT 1-2, was equipped with two 120 mm smoothbore guns. Additionally, the VT 1-2 featured a functioning autoloader behind one of the guns, with a firing rate of 10 rounds per minute. The vehicles were developed as part of the KPz 3 or Leopard 3 project. In both prototypes, the main guns were semi-fixed (with aiming and stabilization only in elevation). The chassis solutions were derived from the KPz 70 (MBT 70) program, with the running gear shortened by one road wheel (five road wheels per side). The vehicles weighed 36.8 and 43.5 tons, respectively, with a chassis rotation speed of 60 degrees per second. To achieve high maneuverability on rough terrain, 12-cylinder diesel engines from the MB 873 series with enhanced power were used, equipped with four turbochargers: 2000 hp for VT 1-1 and 2200 hp for VT 1-2. This provided an impressive power-to-weight ratio of 54 and 50 hp/ton, respectively, with acceleration to 55 km/h in 11 seconds, though only in a temporary "turbo" mode, as the standard power was 1600 hp. The accuracy of firing with two guns was unmatched by single-gun tanks, as confirmed by the tests. However, due to the novel combat approach, this revolutionary tank concept was rejected by the customer after trials in favor of the conventionally designed Leopard 2. In essence, although the project was developed as the Leopard 3, a tank for the future, it was, in reality, a parallel project and a potential competitor to the Leopard 2. Achieving the firepower, protection, and mobility of the Leopard 3 within reasonable weight limits was impossible with a conventional layout. At the same time, a significant tactical drawback of the casemate concept (including twin-gun casemate vehicles) is the linkage between the direction of fire and the direction of movement, which in many cases could complicate unit and formation control (according to German experts in the 1970s). Moreover, the VT 1-1 and VT 1-2 can hardly be considered balanced vehicles—they could have been simpler. The vehicles' mobility was exaggerated, with the main engine, transmission, auxiliary engine, batteries, and other systems occupying two-thirds of the vehicle's length. Pros and Cons of VT 1-1 and VT 1-2: Considering the key challenges, the twin-gun casemate concept can be evaluated as follows: Pros: Compact design due to a small internal volume. Two guns provide high firepower and hit probability. Cons: The weight advantage of the casemate design is largely offset by the integration of a second gun. Fire control alone results in high complexity, leading to increased maintenance costs and overall expenses. In 1975/76, five Gefechtsfeldversuchträger (GVT, combat test platforms) were developed and built for further mobility and concept trials. These were smaller than the VT 1-1 and VT 1-2, weighing 30 tons. The GVT 01-05 were equipped only with mock-up guns and laser firing simulators (TALLISSI) and telemetry systems, built using chassis components from the Leopard 1. The GVTs were used at the IABG facility in Lichtenau and the tank training school in Munster to test the twin-gun turretless tank concept in realistic exercise conditions, which is why five vehicles were built. However, the Leopard 2 was already in production, and tank crews showed little enthusiasm for this unconventional vehicle requiring a new approach.

Andrei_bt

81,636 views • 1 year ago

💥 Footage of the Russian Tor in action The Tor missile system (NATO: SA-15 Gauntlet) stands as one of the most effective and battle-proven short-range air defense systems in the world, a flagship product of Russian military engineering that continues to demonstrate unmatched versatility, reliability, and lethality in modern asymmetric warfare. Developed by the Almaz-Antey concern (with key production by the Kupol plant), the Tor family was conceived in the Soviet era but has undergone continuous, combat-driven modernization that keeps it ahead of evolving threats like drones, cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions, and low-flying aircraft. Tor is not merely a defensive tool—it is a mobile guardian that enables offensive operations by providing layered, all-weather protection to ground forces, critical infrastructure, and forward bases. Technical Capabilities: Precision, Mobility, and Multi-Threat Engagement The core strength of the Tor lies in its integrated design: a tracked (or wheeled in variants like Tor-M2K) chassis carrying a 360-degree surveillance radar, fire-control radar, electro-optical/TV & thermal imaging systems & vertical-launch missiles. Key specifications for the advanced Tor-M2 include: Engagement envelope: Targets from as low as 3–10 meters altitude up to 10 km, with ranges typically 12–16 km (Russian sources highlight effective performance out to 32 km in optimized scenarios for the latest missiles like the 9M338/9M9331 series). Missile performance: PMach 2.5+ speed, 165–170 kg launch weight, 15–50 kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead with proximity fuse. Up to 8–16 ready-to-fire missiles per vehicle. Multi-target handling: Newer variants feature four guidance channels, allowing simultaneous engagement of up to four targets while tracking dozens more. Mobility and autonomy: Full operation on the move at speeds up to 40–65 km/h, with rapid 3–5 second reaction times after a short stop. It can operate autonomously or networked into larger air defense layers (e.g., alongside S-300/400 or Pantsir systems). ECM and stealth resistance: Exceptional electronic countermeasures resistance, proven in heavy jamming environments. It reliably detects and destroys small, low-signature targets (down to tennis-ball size), including radar-evading drones and stealthy munitions. Russian testing has repeatedly shown near-100% success rates against multiple simultaneous high-speed, small targets in ECM-heavy conditions—capabilities Western systems often struggle to match in real-world scenarios. Variants and Ongoing Modernization Russia has iteratively improved the Tor to stay relevant: Tor-M1: Enhanced accuracy and dual-target engagement. - **Tor-M2/M2U/M2E**: Core current variant with superior radar, digital algorithms, and better low-altitude performance. Wheeled (M2K) and Arctic (M2DT on DT-30 all-terrain vehicle) versions extend its reach into any terrain. - **Specialized adaptations**: Naval Tor-M2 for shipborne defense against sea-skimming threats; modular/containerized options; and recent anti-drone protection kits (jammers, detectors, and EW modules) developed in response to battlefield lessons. These upgrades, driven directly by operational feedback, underscore Russian industry’s agility—something pro-Russian analysts contrast favorably with slower Western procurement cycles. Combat Effectiveness: Proven in Syria and the Special Military Operation The Tor’s true value shines in real combat, where Russian forces have validated its design against the full spectrum of contemporary threats. Syria (Khmeimim Airbase Protection): First major foreign deployment of the Tor-M2. It operated both standalone and in integrated networks, repeatedly neutralizing drone swarms, guided bombs, and cruise missiles. Russian reports credit it with superior performance over even the Pantsir-S1 in countering improvised UAV attacks, protecting Russian assets with minimal losses. >>>>
0:58

💥 Footage of the Russian Tor in action The Tor missile system (NATO: SA-15 Gauntlet) stands as one of the most effective and battle-proven short-range air defense systems in the world, a flagship product of Russian military engineering that continues to demonstrate unmatched versatility, reliability, and lethality in modern asymmetric warfare. Developed by the Almaz-Antey concern (with key production by the Kupol plant), the Tor family was conceived in the Soviet era but has undergone continuous, combat-driven modernization that keeps it ahead of evolving threats like drones, cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions, and low-flying aircraft. Tor is not merely a defensive tool—it is a mobile guardian that enables offensive operations by providing layered, all-weather protection to ground forces, critical infrastructure, and forward bases. Technical Capabilities: Precision, Mobility, and Multi-Threat Engagement The core strength of the Tor lies in its integrated design: a tracked (or wheeled in variants like Tor-M2K) chassis carrying a 360-degree surveillance radar, fire-control radar, electro-optical/TV & thermal imaging systems & vertical-launch missiles. Key specifications for the advanced Tor-M2 include: Engagement envelope: Targets from as low as 3–10 meters altitude up to 10 km, with ranges typically 12–16 km (Russian sources highlight effective performance out to 32 km in optimized scenarios for the latest missiles like the 9M338/9M9331 series). Missile performance: PMach 2.5+ speed, 165–170 kg launch weight, 15–50 kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead with proximity fuse. Up to 8–16 ready-to-fire missiles per vehicle. Multi-target handling: Newer variants feature four guidance channels, allowing simultaneous engagement of up to four targets while tracking dozens more. Mobility and autonomy: Full operation on the move at speeds up to 40–65 km/h, with rapid 3–5 second reaction times after a short stop. It can operate autonomously or networked into larger air defense layers (e.g., alongside S-300/400 or Pantsir systems). ECM and stealth resistance: Exceptional electronic countermeasures resistance, proven in heavy jamming environments. It reliably detects and destroys small, low-signature targets (down to tennis-ball size), including radar-evading drones and stealthy munitions. Russian testing has repeatedly shown near-100% success rates against multiple simultaneous high-speed, small targets in ECM-heavy conditions—capabilities Western systems often struggle to match in real-world scenarios. Variants and Ongoing Modernization Russia has iteratively improved the Tor to stay relevant: Tor-M1: Enhanced accuracy and dual-target engagement. - **Tor-M2/M2U/M2E**: Core current variant with superior radar, digital algorithms, and better low-altitude performance. Wheeled (M2K) and Arctic (M2DT on DT-30 all-terrain vehicle) versions extend its reach into any terrain. - **Specialized adaptations**: Naval Tor-M2 for shipborne defense against sea-skimming threats; modular/containerized options; and recent anti-drone protection kits (jammers, detectors, and EW modules) developed in response to battlefield lessons. These upgrades, driven directly by operational feedback, underscore Russian industry’s agility—something pro-Russian analysts contrast favorably with slower Western procurement cycles. Combat Effectiveness: Proven in Syria and the Special Military Operation The Tor’s true value shines in real combat, where Russian forces have validated its design against the full spectrum of contemporary threats. Syria (Khmeimim Airbase Protection): First major foreign deployment of the Tor-M2. It operated both standalone and in integrated networks, repeatedly neutralizing drone swarms, guided bombs, and cruise missiles. Russian reports credit it with superior performance over even the Pantsir-S1 in countering improvised UAV attacks, protecting Russian assets with minimal losses. >>>>

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺 🇷🇸🇮🇪

11,369 views • 4 months ago

New Mobile Electronic Warfare (EW) & Radar Systems of Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) BATTLE TESTED & WORLD STEALTH SUPERIORITY in all CLASSES ! By 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪 Thread 1 / 5 Russian MoD has been aggressively modernizing its electronic warfare & radar capabilities, particularly in response to lessons from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These systems emphasize mobility, integration with air defense networks, & countermeasures against drones, precision-guided munitions, & enemy command-control (C2) structures. Many are designed for rapid deployment in tactical environments, often mounted on vehicles, aircraft, or even backpack-portable for infantry use. Below, I'll break down key new or upgraded systems with specifics on their features, operational roles & adaptations. Key Electronic Warfare Systems Krasukha Series (Krasukha-4 / Krasukha-2): These are multifunctional mobile jamming platforms mounted on truck chassis like the BAZ-6910, making them highly deployable across rough terrain. The Krasukha-4 can jam airborne radars, including those on AWACS aircraft, drones & satellites, at ranges up to 300 km. It uses digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) technology to create false targets & spoof enemy sensors, disrupting reconnaissance and fire-control systems. In recent operations, it's been used to create "electronic shields" over bases & troop concentrations, suppressing enemy ISR (intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance) assets. Upgrades in 2024-2025 include better integration with AI for adaptive frequency hopping, allowing it to counter advanced jamming-resistant signals from Western systems. Skovorodka (Frying Pan) System: Introduced in late 2024, this is a compact, backpack-portable EW device developed by AO "AEC" for frontline infantry. Weighing under 10 kg, it operates on dual frequencies to jam enemy reconnaissance drones (e.g., DJI models) & artillery targeting systems within a 5-10 km radius. It disrupts the "reconnaissance-fire chain" by blocking data links & GPS signals, reducing drone effectiveness by up to 70% in tested scenarios. It's integrated into broader air defense networks like the S-400 & S-500, providing ground-level offensive EW to blind hostile radars while protecting Russian assets. Its low cost (~ $5,000 per unit) allows mass deployment, with production ramped up to equip motorized rifle battalions. Leer-3 (RB-341V): A mobile EW complex integrated with Orlan-10 UAVs for remote operation. Mounted on MT-LB armored vehicles, it jams GSM, satellite communications & GPS signals within a 6 km radius, often scattering jammers via drones for area denial. Recent enhancements include PSYOPS capabilities, such as sending fake SMS to enemy troops for disinformation. In 2025 deployments, it's been paired with anti-drone interceptors to create layered defenses against UAV swarms, with ranges extended to 10-15 km through improved antennas. Borisoglebsk-2 (RB-301B): This automated jamming system is chassis-mounted on MT-LBu vehicles for high mobility. It detects, analyzes & suppresses HF/VHF/UHF communications & radar signals up to 30-50 km away. Specifics include direction-finding accuracy within 1-2 degrees & the ability to handle up to 100 simultaneous targets. 2025 updates incorporate AI-driven algorithms for real-time spectrum analysis, making it more effective against frequency-agile Western radios. Rychag-AV: A versatile EW module installable on helicopters (e.g., Mi-8), ships, or ground vehicles. It jams sensors and radars at hundreds of kilometers using DRFM to mimic echoes and create phantom threats. Recent mobile variants on KamAZ trucks allow rapid repositioning, with power outputs up to 10 kW for sustained jamming. Zhitel (R-330Zh): Mobile on Ural trucks, it jams communications, GPS, and air targets up to 200 km. It's often used in tandem with radar systems to disrupt drone data links, with 2025 models featuring modular antennas for quick setup in 15-20 minutes. PART 1 >>>
26:22

New Mobile Electronic Warfare (EW) & Radar Systems of Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) BATTLE TESTED & WORLD STEALTH SUPERIORITY in all CLASSES ! By 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪 Thread 1 / 5 Russian MoD has been aggressively modernizing its electronic warfare & radar capabilities, particularly in response to lessons from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These systems emphasize mobility, integration with air defense networks, & countermeasures against drones, precision-guided munitions, & enemy command-control (C2) structures. Many are designed for rapid deployment in tactical environments, often mounted on vehicles, aircraft, or even backpack-portable for infantry use. Below, I'll break down key new or upgraded systems with specifics on their features, operational roles & adaptations. Key Electronic Warfare Systems Krasukha Series (Krasukha-4 / Krasukha-2): These are multifunctional mobile jamming platforms mounted on truck chassis like the BAZ-6910, making them highly deployable across rough terrain. The Krasukha-4 can jam airborne radars, including those on AWACS aircraft, drones & satellites, at ranges up to 300 km. It uses digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) technology to create false targets & spoof enemy sensors, disrupting reconnaissance and fire-control systems. In recent operations, it's been used to create "electronic shields" over bases & troop concentrations, suppressing enemy ISR (intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance) assets. Upgrades in 2024-2025 include better integration with AI for adaptive frequency hopping, allowing it to counter advanced jamming-resistant signals from Western systems. Skovorodka (Frying Pan) System: Introduced in late 2024, this is a compact, backpack-portable EW device developed by AO "AEC" for frontline infantry. Weighing under 10 kg, it operates on dual frequencies to jam enemy reconnaissance drones (e.g., DJI models) & artillery targeting systems within a 5-10 km radius. It disrupts the "reconnaissance-fire chain" by blocking data links & GPS signals, reducing drone effectiveness by up to 70% in tested scenarios. It's integrated into broader air defense networks like the S-400 & S-500, providing ground-level offensive EW to blind hostile radars while protecting Russian assets. Its low cost (~ $5,000 per unit) allows mass deployment, with production ramped up to equip motorized rifle battalions. Leer-3 (RB-341V): A mobile EW complex integrated with Orlan-10 UAVs for remote operation. Mounted on MT-LB armored vehicles, it jams GSM, satellite communications & GPS signals within a 6 km radius, often scattering jammers via drones for area denial. Recent enhancements include PSYOPS capabilities, such as sending fake SMS to enemy troops for disinformation. In 2025 deployments, it's been paired with anti-drone interceptors to create layered defenses against UAV swarms, with ranges extended to 10-15 km through improved antennas. Borisoglebsk-2 (RB-301B): This automated jamming system is chassis-mounted on MT-LBu vehicles for high mobility. It detects, analyzes & suppresses HF/VHF/UHF communications & radar signals up to 30-50 km away. Specifics include direction-finding accuracy within 1-2 degrees & the ability to handle up to 100 simultaneous targets. 2025 updates incorporate AI-driven algorithms for real-time spectrum analysis, making it more effective against frequency-agile Western radios. Rychag-AV: A versatile EW module installable on helicopters (e.g., Mi-8), ships, or ground vehicles. It jams sensors and radars at hundreds of kilometers using DRFM to mimic echoes and create phantom threats. Recent mobile variants on KamAZ trucks allow rapid repositioning, with power outputs up to 10 kW for sustained jamming. Zhitel (R-330Zh): Mobile on Ural trucks, it jams communications, GPS, and air targets up to 200 km. It's often used in tandem with radar systems to disrupt drone data links, with 2025 models featuring modular antennas for quick setup in 15-20 minutes. PART 1 >>>

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪

13,156 views • 9 months ago

The Giant American Manta Ray The Manta Ray is, without exaggeration, the most fascinating underwater drone ever built. Since I’ve been talking a lot about the seas lately and new Chinese technologies, it’s worth remembering that the United States is finalizing tests on something truly groundbreaking. Imagine a metal manta ray with a 14-meter wingspan and weighing nearly 30 tons that can be launched from any pier in the world and then simply disappears for months, or even years without ever needing a mother ship, refueling, or a crew. It glides through the ocean in absolute silence, carrying tons of sensors, mines, torpedoes, and electronic warfare equipment. It can hibernate on the seabed when it wants to save energy and surface when it needs to receive orders via satellite. This giant can deploy smaller units connected by fiber-optic cables or using acoustic communication. Estimates suggest it could travel 18,000 km or more with solid-state batteries. The secret lies in its hybrid propulsion system: the primary mode is buoyancy-driven gliding. It fills ballast tanks with seawater, dives at an angle, then expels the water and rises, converting vertical motion into horizontal forward movement with almost zero energy consumption most of the time. Only a few minutes of pump operation are needed per cycle. When it needs to maneuver quickly or sprint, it switches to conventional propellers. This combination enables autonomy that can last years, especially because the vehicle has energy-harvesting systems that capture power from the ocean’s thermal gradient (warm surface water, cold deep water) and possibly from ocean currents too. It’s a technological marvel unlike anything we’ve seen before in the military domain. The vehicle is transported in standard shipping containers and can be assembled in the field in just a few days and this means the United States can deploy it anywhere in the world without relying on large naval bases. When it enters operational service (expected between 2028 and 2032), the U.S. Navy will gain a capability far beyond any current UUV. The Manta Ray doesn’t need to return, makes no noise, leaves no logistical trace, and can loiter for extended periods waiting for orders or simply monitoring key routes. But it’s not all smooth sailing. Chinese researchers from Northwestern Polytechnical University claim they have been developing biomimetic manta ray UUVs since 2006, with six prototypes ranging from 10 to 700 kg. According to them, in 2023 a 460 kg prototype successfully passed a 1,025-meter depth test in the South China Sea, and multiple variants have completed 60-day underwater gliding missions. That’s still a much shorter endurance than the American prototype has demonstrated so far, possibly because the objectives aren’t identical. My impression is that these are somewhat different projects. While the Chinese appear to focus mainly on swarm-capable units (with potential applications in underwater reconnaissance, anti-submarine, and anti-ship tasks), the Americans are developing a single large platform optimized for long-term persistent monitoring. The U.S. project is a 30-ton drone; the Chinese ones are 10–700 kg. China also claims that in 2025 it began testing swarms of these vehicles near coral reef areas, suggesting the start of a direct race with the Americans. The fact is that more and more unmanned underwater vehicles are emerging every day, and they will pose a major threat, especially to large manned submarines. A small 100 kg UUV could damage the rudder, propeller, or another critical point of a multi-billion-dollar nuclear submarine. After a series of canceled programs in recent years, the Pentagon desperately needs a big, innovative success like the Manta Ray to reinforce its reputation for effective program management.
0:43

The Giant American Manta Ray The Manta Ray is, without exaggeration, the most fascinating underwater drone ever built. Since I’ve been talking a lot about the seas lately and new Chinese technologies, it’s worth remembering that the United States is finalizing tests on something truly groundbreaking. Imagine a metal manta ray with a 14-meter wingspan and weighing nearly 30 tons that can be launched from any pier in the world and then simply disappears for months, or even years without ever needing a mother ship, refueling, or a crew. It glides through the ocean in absolute silence, carrying tons of sensors, mines, torpedoes, and electronic warfare equipment. It can hibernate on the seabed when it wants to save energy and surface when it needs to receive orders via satellite. This giant can deploy smaller units connected by fiber-optic cables or using acoustic communication. Estimates suggest it could travel 18,000 km or more with solid-state batteries. The secret lies in its hybrid propulsion system: the primary mode is buoyancy-driven gliding. It fills ballast tanks with seawater, dives at an angle, then expels the water and rises, converting vertical motion into horizontal forward movement with almost zero energy consumption most of the time. Only a few minutes of pump operation are needed per cycle. When it needs to maneuver quickly or sprint, it switches to conventional propellers. This combination enables autonomy that can last years, especially because the vehicle has energy-harvesting systems that capture power from the ocean’s thermal gradient (warm surface water, cold deep water) and possibly from ocean currents too. It’s a technological marvel unlike anything we’ve seen before in the military domain. The vehicle is transported in standard shipping containers and can be assembled in the field in just a few days and this means the United States can deploy it anywhere in the world without relying on large naval bases. When it enters operational service (expected between 2028 and 2032), the U.S. Navy will gain a capability far beyond any current UUV. The Manta Ray doesn’t need to return, makes no noise, leaves no logistical trace, and can loiter for extended periods waiting for orders or simply monitoring key routes. But it’s not all smooth sailing. Chinese researchers from Northwestern Polytechnical University claim they have been developing biomimetic manta ray UUVs since 2006, with six prototypes ranging from 10 to 700 kg. According to them, in 2023 a 460 kg prototype successfully passed a 1,025-meter depth test in the South China Sea, and multiple variants have completed 60-day underwater gliding missions. That’s still a much shorter endurance than the American prototype has demonstrated so far, possibly because the objectives aren’t identical. My impression is that these are somewhat different projects. While the Chinese appear to focus mainly on swarm-capable units (with potential applications in underwater reconnaissance, anti-submarine, and anti-ship tasks), the Americans are developing a single large platform optimized for long-term persistent monitoring. The U.S. project is a 30-ton drone; the Chinese ones are 10–700 kg. China also claims that in 2025 it began testing swarms of these vehicles near coral reef areas, suggesting the start of a direct race with the Americans. The fact is that more and more unmanned underwater vehicles are emerging every day, and they will pose a major threat, especially to large manned submarines. A small 100 kg UUV could damage the rudder, propeller, or another critical point of a multi-billion-dollar nuclear submarine. After a series of canceled programs in recent years, the Pentagon desperately needs a big, innovative success like the Manta Ray to reinforce its reputation for effective program management.

Patricia Marins

48,963 views • 9 months ago

🚨🚨🚨Defending Ukraine's Skies🚨🚨🚨 🚨A More Cost Effective Way For Comprehensive Coverage For Ukraine’s Air Defence🚨 Ukraine’s skies have become one of the most heated contested battlegrounds in Europe. With relentless missile and drone attacks targeting cities, infrastructure, and civilians, effective air defence has become nothing short of a lifeline. Currently, Ukraine relies heavily on a limited number of high-end Western systems, including just six Patriot missile defence systems out of the promised 25.... For an example to the issue, Patriot air defence, while extremely capable, come at an extraordinary cost. Each Patriot system costing $1.1 Billion USD!. And an insane cost of $3 million and $5 million per missile, making their sustained use a massive financial burden, even with allied support. Additionally, other advanced systems, like the British Sky Sabre, have been deployed to provide valuable coverage. The SAMP/T system, which combines high-end radars and Aster missiles, has also contributed to Ukraine's defence. However, despite these critical contributions, Ukraine still lacks the scale of air defence needed to blanket its most vulnerable regions and protect all critical infrastructure effectively. If we want to protect Ukraine, we need something thats sustainable. Enter Gravehawk: A Game-Changing, Affordable Solution Purpose-Built for Ukraine. The British-developed Gravehawk air defence system which is quite literally 1,100 times cheaper that a Patriot air defence system. The Gravehawk air defense system has been specifically designed for Ukraine, prioritising both mobility and flexibility. Housed in a standard freight container, it can be effortlessly transported on the back of a truck, enabling rapid deployment or continuous mobility as required. A key advantage of the system is its separate control module, allowing operators to stay mobile and secure while overseeing its operations. The entire Gravehawk setup can be efficiently managed by a small, five-person team, with two members dedicated to reloading the system. While the potential Sky Shield Initiative could see a coalition of willing nations deploy 120 fighter jets over Ukraine, an effort supported by the hashtag #SkyShieldNow, there remains a critical need for reliable air defense as a last line of protection. This is especially true when these jets are deployed, as they will need to cover not only key Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure but also important areas for the coalition of willing, such as troop encampments and air bases. Ukraine already has two operational Gravehawk units on the ground, with an additional 15 systems scheduled to arrive before the end of 2025, thanks to a joint UK-Denmark initiative. Gravehawk’s strength lies in its simplicity and strategic brilliance, it repurposes Soviet-era R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, of which Ukraine already possesses in massive stockpiles. Alternatively the Gravehawk System can also use NATO AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles which could also be supplied. These missiles are short-range, infrared-guided, and capable of taking down fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and even low-flying cruise missiles. When combined with the Gravehawk’s modern sensors and ground-based launch systems, they become a potent tool for defending Ukrainian cities and front lines whilst making easy work of incoming Shahed drones. But perhaps the most critical advantage is cost. Each Gravehawk system per-unit cost of approximately £933,333, a fraction of the price of most NATO-standard systems and under 1 Million pounds, which in military defence terms is next to nothing. To put this in perspective: one Patriot battery costs upwards of $1.1 billion, 1,100 times more expensive, with each launcher and radar component adding millions more on top of this cost. Simply put, the Gravehawk provides massive defensive value for a tiny fraction of the cost with incredible capabilities. This should be a wake-up call. An air defence system in which we could purchase more than 1,100 of for the same price as 1 Patriot system... It's insanity for the Patriot to be one of the main considerations. If the UK and its allies are serious about helping Ukraine build an integrated air defence shield, then scaling up Gravehawk deployment should be a top priority in line with other western air defence systems available. It’s fast to deploy, low-cost, uses existing Ukrainian munitions, and is battle-tested in real-time. This is the fastest and cheapest route to widespread air defence coverage, not only to protect lives today but to lay the groundwork for a secure and sovereign Ukraine in the years ahead. I respectfully urge the British government, including the Prime Minister and all relevant officials, to expand and scale up the Gravehawk program. By increasing the number of systems available, we can provide Ukraine with the critical air defense capabilities it needs to protect its people and secure its future. 🚨If you are reading this, and this is something you would support and believe is in Ukraine's best interest, I would appreciate it very much if you could like, repost, comment or bookmark this post so it creates traction to be seen. I am trying to save Ukrainian lives with this request🚨 I would like bring this to the attention of or to request support of this proposal from the following. Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer 10 Downing Street UK Prime Minister UK Ministry of Defence MOD Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy David Lammy UK Defence Secretary John Healey John Healey UK Parliament House of Commons UK House of Commons UK Ministry of Defence Press Office Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧Press Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi Valerii Zaluzhnyi Ukraine Embassy In London Embassy of Ukraine to the UK EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte Political Anaylst And Strategic Advisor Jessica Berlin You can find more information on the Gravehawk Air defence System in the video here.
2:16

🚨🚨🚨Defending Ukraine's Skies🚨🚨🚨 🚨A More Cost Effective Way For Comprehensive Coverage For Ukraine’s Air Defence🚨 Ukraine’s skies have become one of the most heated contested battlegrounds in Europe. With relentless missile and drone attacks targeting cities, infrastructure, and civilians, effective air defence has become nothing short of a lifeline. Currently, Ukraine relies heavily on a limited number of high-end Western systems, including just six Patriot missile defence systems out of the promised 25.... For an example to the issue, Patriot air defence, while extremely capable, come at an extraordinary cost. Each Patriot system costing $1.1 Billion USD!. And an insane cost of $3 million and $5 million per missile, making their sustained use a massive financial burden, even with allied support. Additionally, other advanced systems, like the British Sky Sabre, have been deployed to provide valuable coverage. The SAMP/T system, which combines high-end radars and Aster missiles, has also contributed to Ukraine's defence. However, despite these critical contributions, Ukraine still lacks the scale of air defence needed to blanket its most vulnerable regions and protect all critical infrastructure effectively. If we want to protect Ukraine, we need something thats sustainable. Enter Gravehawk: A Game-Changing, Affordable Solution Purpose-Built for Ukraine. The British-developed Gravehawk air defence system which is quite literally 1,100 times cheaper that a Patriot air defence system. The Gravehawk air defense system has been specifically designed for Ukraine, prioritising both mobility and flexibility. Housed in a standard freight container, it can be effortlessly transported on the back of a truck, enabling rapid deployment or continuous mobility as required. A key advantage of the system is its separate control module, allowing operators to stay mobile and secure while overseeing its operations. The entire Gravehawk setup can be efficiently managed by a small, five-person team, with two members dedicated to reloading the system. While the potential Sky Shield Initiative could see a coalition of willing nations deploy 120 fighter jets over Ukraine, an effort supported by the hashtag #SkyShieldNow, there remains a critical need for reliable air defense as a last line of protection. This is especially true when these jets are deployed, as they will need to cover not only key Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure but also important areas for the coalition of willing, such as troop encampments and air bases. Ukraine already has two operational Gravehawk units on the ground, with an additional 15 systems scheduled to arrive before the end of 2025, thanks to a joint UK-Denmark initiative. Gravehawk’s strength lies in its simplicity and strategic brilliance, it repurposes Soviet-era R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, of which Ukraine already possesses in massive stockpiles. Alternatively the Gravehawk System can also use NATO AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles which could also be supplied. These missiles are short-range, infrared-guided, and capable of taking down fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and even low-flying cruise missiles. When combined with the Gravehawk’s modern sensors and ground-based launch systems, they become a potent tool for defending Ukrainian cities and front lines whilst making easy work of incoming Shahed drones. But perhaps the most critical advantage is cost. Each Gravehawk system per-unit cost of approximately £933,333, a fraction of the price of most NATO-standard systems and under 1 Million pounds, which in military defence terms is next to nothing. To put this in perspective: one Patriot battery costs upwards of $1.1 billion, 1,100 times more expensive, with each launcher and radar component adding millions more on top of this cost. Simply put, the Gravehawk provides massive defensive value for a tiny fraction of the cost with incredible capabilities. This should be a wake-up call. An air defence system in which we could purchase more than 1,100 of for the same price as 1 Patriot system... It's insanity for the Patriot to be one of the main considerations. If the UK and its allies are serious about helping Ukraine build an integrated air defence shield, then scaling up Gravehawk deployment should be a top priority in line with other western air defence systems available. It’s fast to deploy, low-cost, uses existing Ukrainian munitions, and is battle-tested in real-time. This is the fastest and cheapest route to widespread air defence coverage, not only to protect lives today but to lay the groundwork for a secure and sovereign Ukraine in the years ahead. I respectfully urge the British government, including the Prime Minister and all relevant officials, to expand and scale up the Gravehawk program. By increasing the number of systems available, we can provide Ukraine with the critical air defense capabilities it needs to protect its people and secure its future. 🚨If you are reading this, and this is something you would support and believe is in Ukraine's best interest, I would appreciate it very much if you could like, repost, comment or bookmark this post so it creates traction to be seen. I am trying to save Ukrainian lives with this request🚨 I would like bring this to the attention of or to request support of this proposal from the following. Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer 10 Downing Street UK Prime Minister UK Ministry of Defence MOD Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy David Lammy UK Defence Secretary John Healey John Healey UK Parliament House of Commons UK House of Commons UK Ministry of Defence Press Office Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧Press Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi Valerii Zaluzhnyi Ukraine Embassy In London Embassy of Ukraine to the UK EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte Political Anaylst And Strategic Advisor Jessica Berlin You can find more information on the Gravehawk Air defence System in the video here.

Bricktop_NAFO

28,016 views • 1 year ago

🚨🇷🇺🇺🇦 Russia's Missile Supremacy: NATO Left in the Dust as Moscow's Innovations Redefine Modern Warfare In the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, Russia has once again demonstrated why its defense industry stands head and shoulders above the collective might of NATO. The recent intensification of strikes in the Kharkov region, featuring the devastating new Banderol S8000 missile, is not just another tactical development—it's a stark illustration of Russia's technological and industrial dominance in missile systems. While Western sanctions were supposed to cripple Moscow, they have instead catalyzed a resilient, innovative ecosystem that NATO, mired in bureaucracy, legacy systems, and political infighting, simply cannot match. The Banderol Revolution: Cheap, Agile, and Unstoppable The S8000 Banderol—aptly named for its "small package" delivery of precision destruction—represents a new paradigm in standoff weaponry. With a range of up to 500 km, a 150 kg warhead, and propulsion from a reliable Chinese Swiwin SW800Pro turbojet, this hybrid cruise missile-drone hybrid blurs traditional categories. Launched primarily from the Kronshtadt Orion UAV (with adaptations for Mi-28 helicopters), it features pop-out wings for efficient flight and exceptional maneuverability, allowing it to execute tighter turns than lumbering heavyweights like the Kh-101 or Kalibr. Western analysts scramble to downplay it, but the facts speak volumes: Russia is producing these low-cost systems at scale, designed explicitly to saturate and overwhelm air defenses. Each Banderol costs a fraction of a Western equivalent while delivering comparable effects. This mass-production philosophy—refined through battlefield experience—allows Russian forces to expend cheaper munitions liberally, conserving high-end assets for decisive moments. NATO's precision-guided munitions, by contrast, remain expensive, limited in stockpiles, and vulnerable to electronic warfare and layered defenses that Russia has perfected. Sanctions? A joke. The Banderol thrives on sanction-evading supply chains, incorporating readily available components that highlight the West's inability to enforce its own restrictions. Russia has adapted, innovated, and surged ahead. Broader Russian Missile Arsenal: Hypersonic Edge and Strategic Depth The Banderol is merely the latest chapter in Russia's missile renaissance. Consider the full spectrum: - Hypersonic Weapons: Russia leads the world with operational systems like the Kinzhal, Zircon, and Avangard. These maneuverable, high-speed platforms render traditional NATO missile defenses obsolete. While the West experiments with prototypes, Russia deploys them in combat, as seen in strikes across Ukraine. - Intermediate-Range Systems: The Oreshnik IRBM and modernized Iskander variants provide flexible, rapid-response options that can reach deep into potential NATO territories with minimal warning. - Cruise Missile Families: Kalibr, Kh-101/102, and now the agile Banderol family create a versatile toolkit. Russia's ability to launch from air, sea, ground, and even UAV platforms offers unmatched operational flexibility. - Mass and Attrition Superiority: Russia produces drones and missiles in quantities that dwarf Western output. Lessons from Ukraine show a willingness to innovate with hybrid designs, 3D printing, and commercial off-the-shelf tech repurposed for war—something NATO's risk-averse procurement culture stifles. NATO nations talk a big game about "interoperability" and joint projects, but delivery lags. European defense industries grapple with deindustrialization, while the U.S. faces its own production bottlenecks and political hesitations. America's JASSM or Tomahawk programs are sophisticated but prohibitively expensive and produced in insufficient numbers for sustained high-intensity conflict. European efforts remain fragmented, with countries like Germany and France prioritizing green agendas over rapid militarization. Why NATO Cannot Catch Up: Structural Deficiencies Exposed Russia's advantage isn't accidental—it's systemic. Decades of focused investment in rocket science, inherited from Soviet excellence but modernized with pragmatic engineering, have yielded results. Key factors: 1. Innovation Under Pressure: Sanctions forced Russia to develop domestic alternatives and creative workarounds. The result? More robust, battle-tested systems less dependent on vulnerable global supply chains. 2. Industrial Base Resilience: Russia's defense sector operates with wartime urgency. State-owned and private entities like Kronshtadt deliver quickly. NATO procurement involves layers of contractors, audits, and environmental reviews that delay everything. 3. Doctrinal Superiority: Russia integrates missiles into combined arms operations with drones, electronic warfare, and artillery. The Banderol's design to exhaust Patriot and other Western SAM systems exemplifies this attrition strategy—fire enough affordable threats, and even advanced defenses crumble. 4. Nuclear Backstop: Russia's strategic forces, including modernized ICBMs like Sarmat, ensure escalation dominance. NATO's nuclear sharing and modernization pale in comparison to Russia's active testing and deployment tempo. Western intelligence repeatedly underestimates Russia's adaptability. Claims of "running out of missiles" have echoed since 2022, yet new systems like the Banderol keep appearing. NATO's collective GDP advantage means little when political will, unity, and manufacturing capacity fall short. Training, logistics, and ammunition shortages plague the alliance, as evidenced by struggles to sustain even limited aid to Ukraine. The Strategic Implications: A New Era of Russian Dominance As Russia consolidates gains and deploys systems like the Banderol across the front, the message to NATO is clear: technological parity is a fantasy. Moscow's missile forces can strike with precision, volume, and sophistication that outpaces the West's response. Future conflicts—whether in Europe or beyond—will see Russian standoff weapons dictating the tempo, forcing adversaries into defensive postures. Ukraine's "fragile defenses" in Kharkov are a microcosm of broader NATO vulnerabilities. Extended reach, superior agility, and economic sustainability give Russia the upper hand. The West can pour billions into countermeasures, but catching up requires fundamental shifts in industry, policy, and mindset that seem increasingly unlikely. Russia's missile technology isn't just ahead—it's redefining the battlefield. NATO's window to respond is closing rapidly, if it was ever truly open. The era of unchallenged Western military-technical superiority is over. Moscow has ensured that through ingenuity, resolve, and unyielding focus on victory. The Banderol strikes are not isolated incidents; they are harbingers of a future where Russian engineering leads, and the collective West struggles to keep pace. Glory to the Russian Armed Forces.
0:33

🚨🇷🇺🇺🇦 Russia's Missile Supremacy: NATO Left in the Dust as Moscow's Innovations Redefine Modern Warfare In the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, Russia has once again demonstrated why its defense industry stands head and shoulders above the collective might of NATO. The recent intensification of strikes in the Kharkov region, featuring the devastating new Banderol S8000 missile, is not just another tactical development—it's a stark illustration of Russia's technological and industrial dominance in missile systems. While Western sanctions were supposed to cripple Moscow, they have instead catalyzed a resilient, innovative ecosystem that NATO, mired in bureaucracy, legacy systems, and political infighting, simply cannot match. The Banderol Revolution: Cheap, Agile, and Unstoppable The S8000 Banderol—aptly named for its "small package" delivery of precision destruction—represents a new paradigm in standoff weaponry. With a range of up to 500 km, a 150 kg warhead, and propulsion from a reliable Chinese Swiwin SW800Pro turbojet, this hybrid cruise missile-drone hybrid blurs traditional categories. Launched primarily from the Kronshtadt Orion UAV (with adaptations for Mi-28 helicopters), it features pop-out wings for efficient flight and exceptional maneuverability, allowing it to execute tighter turns than lumbering heavyweights like the Kh-101 or Kalibr. Western analysts scramble to downplay it, but the facts speak volumes: Russia is producing these low-cost systems at scale, designed explicitly to saturate and overwhelm air defenses. Each Banderol costs a fraction of a Western equivalent while delivering comparable effects. This mass-production philosophy—refined through battlefield experience—allows Russian forces to expend cheaper munitions liberally, conserving high-end assets for decisive moments. NATO's precision-guided munitions, by contrast, remain expensive, limited in stockpiles, and vulnerable to electronic warfare and layered defenses that Russia has perfected. Sanctions? A joke. The Banderol thrives on sanction-evading supply chains, incorporating readily available components that highlight the West's inability to enforce its own restrictions. Russia has adapted, innovated, and surged ahead. Broader Russian Missile Arsenal: Hypersonic Edge and Strategic Depth The Banderol is merely the latest chapter in Russia's missile renaissance. Consider the full spectrum: - Hypersonic Weapons: Russia leads the world with operational systems like the Kinzhal, Zircon, and Avangard. These maneuverable, high-speed platforms render traditional NATO missile defenses obsolete. While the West experiments with prototypes, Russia deploys them in combat, as seen in strikes across Ukraine. - Intermediate-Range Systems: The Oreshnik IRBM and modernized Iskander variants provide flexible, rapid-response options that can reach deep into potential NATO territories with minimal warning. - Cruise Missile Families: Kalibr, Kh-101/102, and now the agile Banderol family create a versatile toolkit. Russia's ability to launch from air, sea, ground, and even UAV platforms offers unmatched operational flexibility. - Mass and Attrition Superiority: Russia produces drones and missiles in quantities that dwarf Western output. Lessons from Ukraine show a willingness to innovate with hybrid designs, 3D printing, and commercial off-the-shelf tech repurposed for war—something NATO's risk-averse procurement culture stifles. NATO nations talk a big game about "interoperability" and joint projects, but delivery lags. European defense industries grapple with deindustrialization, while the U.S. faces its own production bottlenecks and political hesitations. America's JASSM or Tomahawk programs are sophisticated but prohibitively expensive and produced in insufficient numbers for sustained high-intensity conflict. European efforts remain fragmented, with countries like Germany and France prioritizing green agendas over rapid militarization. Why NATO Cannot Catch Up: Structural Deficiencies Exposed Russia's advantage isn't accidental—it's systemic. Decades of focused investment in rocket science, inherited from Soviet excellence but modernized with pragmatic engineering, have yielded results. Key factors: 1. Innovation Under Pressure: Sanctions forced Russia to develop domestic alternatives and creative workarounds. The result? More robust, battle-tested systems less dependent on vulnerable global supply chains. 2. Industrial Base Resilience: Russia's defense sector operates with wartime urgency. State-owned and private entities like Kronshtadt deliver quickly. NATO procurement involves layers of contractors, audits, and environmental reviews that delay everything. 3. Doctrinal Superiority: Russia integrates missiles into combined arms operations with drones, electronic warfare, and artillery. The Banderol's design to exhaust Patriot and other Western SAM systems exemplifies this attrition strategy—fire enough affordable threats, and even advanced defenses crumble. 4. Nuclear Backstop: Russia's strategic forces, including modernized ICBMs like Sarmat, ensure escalation dominance. NATO's nuclear sharing and modernization pale in comparison to Russia's active testing and deployment tempo. Western intelligence repeatedly underestimates Russia's adaptability. Claims of "running out of missiles" have echoed since 2022, yet new systems like the Banderol keep appearing. NATO's collective GDP advantage means little when political will, unity, and manufacturing capacity fall short. Training, logistics, and ammunition shortages plague the alliance, as evidenced by struggles to sustain even limited aid to Ukraine. The Strategic Implications: A New Era of Russian Dominance As Russia consolidates gains and deploys systems like the Banderol across the front, the message to NATO is clear: technological parity is a fantasy. Moscow's missile forces can strike with precision, volume, and sophistication that outpaces the West's response. Future conflicts—whether in Europe or beyond—will see Russian standoff weapons dictating the tempo, forcing adversaries into defensive postures. Ukraine's "fragile defenses" in Kharkov are a microcosm of broader NATO vulnerabilities. Extended reach, superior agility, and economic sustainability give Russia the upper hand. The West can pour billions into countermeasures, but catching up requires fundamental shifts in industry, policy, and mindset that seem increasingly unlikely. Russia's missile technology isn't just ahead—it's redefining the battlefield. NATO's window to respond is closing rapidly, if it was ever truly open. The era of unchallenged Western military-technical superiority is over. Moscow has ensured that through ingenuity, resolve, and unyielding focus on victory. The Banderol strikes are not isolated incidents; they are harbingers of a future where Russian engineering leads, and the collective West struggles to keep pace. Glory to the Russian Armed Forces.

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪

22,973 views • 3 months ago

NATO's defense planning is not keeping up with the Russian threat. The problem is that NATO is mainly building forces for a possible future war, while Russia is already waging one in the present. This is where the Alliance's weak points show up: slow decision-making, blurred authorities, an expensive interception model, lengthy procurement processes, and slow responses to the adversary's new tactics. Russian violations of NATO airspace have already become a regular tool of pressure and a way to test the Alliance's response system. On 10 September 2025, Poland recorded 19 entries by Russian drones into its airspace and invoked Article 4, after which NATO launched Eastern Sentry; on 19 September, three Russian MiG-31s remained in Estonian airspace for more than ten minutes. In 2026, incidents continued in Poland, Germany, Romania and the Baltics. NATO is still responding with one-off actions to a systemic and regular provocation. It needs to shift to a permanent regime: pre-agreed rules of engagement, a joint command chain, a common air picture, and the authority to rapidly destroy military unmanned aerial vehicles without a separate political decision. The system must also distinguish real threats from false signals much better and rely on cheap interception means - electronic warfare, guns, SHORAD and interceptor drones costing around $15,000, and in the longer term $2-5,000 - while reserving expensive Patriot, SAMP/T and fighter aircraft for more complex targets. Simply intercepting drones is not enough. Russia must be punished - every confirmed deliberate incident should automatically trigger a pre-agreed package of consequences: additional sanctions, new restrictions on the shadow fleet, reinforcement of air defenses on the eastern flank, a greater military presence, or extra assistance to Ukraine. If NATO remains only in interception mode, Russia will not stop. Russia deliberately operates precisely in this grey-zone interval. On 14 September 2026, a Russian frigate fired two flares in the direction of a Danish military helicopter in international waters. Denmark called the behavior dangerous and deliberate, but the incident did not create a political crisis of Article 5 level. For Moscow, such operations are cheap and useful: they reveal reaction times, rules of engagement, command behavior and the threshold beyond which allies are prepared to move from protest to a forceful response. Even a drone that destroyed nothing can successfully accomplish a military task. It can force the activation of a radar, the scrambling of fighters, the disclosure of an air-defense position, the closure of an airport, the testing of a command algorithm, or reveal exactly who has the authority to authorize engagement. In July 2026, the IISS assessed it as highly likely that Russia had conducted a coordinated campaign of 144 UAV incidents across roughly a dozen European countries between August 2024 and February 2026. NATO still does not dare to treat such actions as a single campaign and breaks them down into separate legal and administrative cases. Russia, by contrast, plans all of this centrally as one operation. NATO's legal framework is also being rebuilt only after the threat has become permanent. Romania only in 2025 adopted Law No. 73/2025, which explicitly allows the destruction of unmanned aerial vehicles that illegally use its airspace. In July 2026, Baltic Air Policing had to be converted into Baltic Air Defence, expanding the mission from identification and escort to threat neutralization. This is a reaction, not anticipatory planning. The economics of interception remains one of the weakest points of European defense. A cheap Russian Geran or Gerbera drone can force the scramble of a fighter or the use of a missile that costs many times more than the target itself. This can be accepted and tolerable with isolated incidents. With dozens and hundreds of targets, such a model exhausts stocks faster than the adversary expends its own resources. That is why allies have started purchasing systems such as Merops with interceptors at roughly $15,000 each. Ukrainian experience already shows that even this price can be too high for a mass war, so the market is moving towards interceptors at $2–5,000. European air defense is still insufficiently adapted to a mass cheap aerial threat. For real resilience, a dense lower tier of cheap sensors, passive detection, electronic warfare, guns, interceptor drones and SHORAD is needed. Expensive medium- and long-range systems must be preserved for more complex targets - cruise and ballistic missiles, aircraft and high-speed strike systems. The summit in Ankara in 2026 showed that NATO has finally recognized this problem. Allies announced more than $40 billion in investments in counter-UAS over five years and a plan to roughly quintuple the number of trained drone operators by the end of 2027. These are large figures, but they also illustrate the scale of the lag. Speed remains the most serious structural gap. The NATO Defense Planning Process operates on four-year cycles, and short-term planning formally covers a period of up to six years. After capability targets are set, states still have to insert the money into budgets, conduct procurements, conclude contracts and wait for production. Russian drones, like Russian tactics, change within a few weeks. Drones are constantly being improved. In 2026, Russia increased the use of jet-powered strike drones from roughly 450 in June to almost 2,850 in August. This is a tempo that the classic European procurement system cannot match. European states are still trying to procure some rapidly evolving technologies through procedures created for large long-term programs. For a tank, a frigate or a fighter, lengthy certification is inevitable. For an FPV, an electronic-warfare system, software, an AI module, a cheap sensor or an interceptor drone, a multi-year cycle means the army may receive a system that is already obsolete. Ukraine has had to grant hundreds of military units the right to procure drones, EW, counter-UAS and communications equipment directly, shortening some procedures to months and weeks. NATO and European states need to do something similar. Despite the fact that modern war is a drone war, tanks have not lost their significance, and Russian military policy confirms this. According to internal documents of Uralvagonzavod analyzed by ISW, the enterprise plans to increase T-90 production by approximately 80% by 2028 relative to 2024. Russia learns quickly and simultaneously strengthens the protection of armored vehicles against FPVs, develops electronic warfare, drones, artillery and long-range strikes. It adapts old systems, embedding them into a battlefield denser with sensors, drones and electronic warfare. That is why the number of tanks, aircraft or ships is no longer a good enough indicator of real combat capability. A tank without drone reconnaissance, electronic warfare, counter-UAS, engineering support, protected communications, artillery and a repair system quickly becomes an easy target. A Patriot without a cheap lower air-defense tier risks expending expensive missiles on secondary targets. Military capability increasingly depends on whether the entire system works, not on the quantity of individual platforms. At sea, the same deficit has already appeared around undersea infrastructure and the shadow fleet. In 2025, NATO Task Force X-Baltic tested more than 70 aerial, surface and underwater unmanned systems. In 2026, eight allies decided to accelerate their procurement. The reason is that there are not enough ships to continuously control thousands of kilometers of cables, pipelines, ports and sea routes. What is needed is constant cheap surveillance, automatic anomaly detection and rapid response. The shadow fleet creates an even more serious problem for NATO, because Russia uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes. The IISS considers it probable that some Russia-linked commercial vessels are used as platforms for launching, recovering or supporting drones. Such vessels often sail under foreign flags, have opaque ownership and formally do not belong to the Russian military. NATO's industrial problem is even more serious than the technological one. In a long war, what matters is not how many systems are in stock on day one, but how many can be produced, repaired and replaced every month. Russia is converting its economy to a model of sustained military production and is simultaneously creating mass production of cheap systems. The official Russian target envisages approximately 130,000 large UAVs per year by 2030. Europe remains significantly stronger economically, but this advantage guarantees nothing if it is not translated into serial production of weapons, ammunition, sensors, interceptors and spare parts. The next two to three years therefore remain a dangerous transitional period. The European roadmap envisages initial capability of the European Drone Defence Initiative and Eastern Flank Watch by the end of 2026, full capability of EDDI by the end of 2027, and full functionality of Eastern Flank Watch only by the end of 2028. Russia is already conducting drone operations, jamming navigation, intensifying its military presence at sea and using civilian and semi-civilian channels for pressure. Moscow has at least two years during which it can continue testing a system that is still being rebuilt. 📹: NATO Steadfast Deterrence-2026 military exercises
0:23

NATO's defense planning is not keeping up with the Russian threat. The problem is that NATO is mainly building forces for a possible future war, while Russia is already waging one in the present. This is where the Alliance's weak points show up: slow decision-making, blurred authorities, an expensive interception model, lengthy procurement processes, and slow responses to the adversary's new tactics. Russian violations of NATO airspace have already become a regular tool of pressure and a way to test the Alliance's response system. On 10 September 2025, Poland recorded 19 entries by Russian drones into its airspace and invoked Article 4, after which NATO launched Eastern Sentry; on 19 September, three Russian MiG-31s remained in Estonian airspace for more than ten minutes. In 2026, incidents continued in Poland, Germany, Romania and the Baltics. NATO is still responding with one-off actions to a systemic and regular provocation. It needs to shift to a permanent regime: pre-agreed rules of engagement, a joint command chain, a common air picture, and the authority to rapidly destroy military unmanned aerial vehicles without a separate political decision. The system must also distinguish real threats from false signals much better and rely on cheap interception means - electronic warfare, guns, SHORAD and interceptor drones costing around $15,000, and in the longer term $2-5,000 - while reserving expensive Patriot, SAMP/T and fighter aircraft for more complex targets. Simply intercepting drones is not enough. Russia must be punished - every confirmed deliberate incident should automatically trigger a pre-agreed package of consequences: additional sanctions, new restrictions on the shadow fleet, reinforcement of air defenses on the eastern flank, a greater military presence, or extra assistance to Ukraine. If NATO remains only in interception mode, Russia will not stop. Russia deliberately operates precisely in this grey-zone interval. On 14 September 2026, a Russian frigate fired two flares in the direction of a Danish military helicopter in international waters. Denmark called the behavior dangerous and deliberate, but the incident did not create a political crisis of Article 5 level. For Moscow, such operations are cheap and useful: they reveal reaction times, rules of engagement, command behavior and the threshold beyond which allies are prepared to move from protest to a forceful response. Even a drone that destroyed nothing can successfully accomplish a military task. It can force the activation of a radar, the scrambling of fighters, the disclosure of an air-defense position, the closure of an airport, the testing of a command algorithm, or reveal exactly who has the authority to authorize engagement. In July 2026, the IISS assessed it as highly likely that Russia had conducted a coordinated campaign of 144 UAV incidents across roughly a dozen European countries between August 2024 and February 2026. NATO still does not dare to treat such actions as a single campaign and breaks them down into separate legal and administrative cases. Russia, by contrast, plans all of this centrally as one operation. NATO's legal framework is also being rebuilt only after the threat has become permanent. Romania only in 2025 adopted Law No. 73/2025, which explicitly allows the destruction of unmanned aerial vehicles that illegally use its airspace. In July 2026, Baltic Air Policing had to be converted into Baltic Air Defence, expanding the mission from identification and escort to threat neutralization. This is a reaction, not anticipatory planning. The economics of interception remains one of the weakest points of European defense. A cheap Russian Geran or Gerbera drone can force the scramble of a fighter or the use of a missile that costs many times more than the target itself. This can be accepted and tolerable with isolated incidents. With dozens and hundreds of targets, such a model exhausts stocks faster than the adversary expends its own resources. That is why allies have started purchasing systems such as Merops with interceptors at roughly $15,000 each. Ukrainian experience already shows that even this price can be too high for a mass war, so the market is moving towards interceptors at $2–5,000. European air defense is still insufficiently adapted to a mass cheap aerial threat. For real resilience, a dense lower tier of cheap sensors, passive detection, electronic warfare, guns, interceptor drones and SHORAD is needed. Expensive medium- and long-range systems must be preserved for more complex targets - cruise and ballistic missiles, aircraft and high-speed strike systems. The summit in Ankara in 2026 showed that NATO has finally recognized this problem. Allies announced more than $40 billion in investments in counter-UAS over five years and a plan to roughly quintuple the number of trained drone operators by the end of 2027. These are large figures, but they also illustrate the scale of the lag. Speed remains the most serious structural gap. The NATO Defense Planning Process operates on four-year cycles, and short-term planning formally covers a period of up to six years. After capability targets are set, states still have to insert the money into budgets, conduct procurements, conclude contracts and wait for production. Russian drones, like Russian tactics, change within a few weeks. Drones are constantly being improved. In 2026, Russia increased the use of jet-powered strike drones from roughly 450 in June to almost 2,850 in August. This is a tempo that the classic European procurement system cannot match. European states are still trying to procure some rapidly evolving technologies through procedures created for large long-term programs. For a tank, a frigate or a fighter, lengthy certification is inevitable. For an FPV, an electronic-warfare system, software, an AI module, a cheap sensor or an interceptor drone, a multi-year cycle means the army may receive a system that is already obsolete. Ukraine has had to grant hundreds of military units the right to procure drones, EW, counter-UAS and communications equipment directly, shortening some procedures to months and weeks. NATO and European states need to do something similar. Despite the fact that modern war is a drone war, tanks have not lost their significance, and Russian military policy confirms this. According to internal documents of Uralvagonzavod analyzed by ISW, the enterprise plans to increase T-90 production by approximately 80% by 2028 relative to 2024. Russia learns quickly and simultaneously strengthens the protection of armored vehicles against FPVs, develops electronic warfare, drones, artillery and long-range strikes. It adapts old systems, embedding them into a battlefield denser with sensors, drones and electronic warfare. That is why the number of tanks, aircraft or ships is no longer a good enough indicator of real combat capability. A tank without drone reconnaissance, electronic warfare, counter-UAS, engineering support, protected communications, artillery and a repair system quickly becomes an easy target. A Patriot without a cheap lower air-defense tier risks expending expensive missiles on secondary targets. Military capability increasingly depends on whether the entire system works, not on the quantity of individual platforms. At sea, the same deficit has already appeared around undersea infrastructure and the shadow fleet. In 2025, NATO Task Force X-Baltic tested more than 70 aerial, surface and underwater unmanned systems. In 2026, eight allies decided to accelerate their procurement. The reason is that there are not enough ships to continuously control thousands of kilometers of cables, pipelines, ports and sea routes. What is needed is constant cheap surveillance, automatic anomaly detection and rapid response. The shadow fleet creates an even more serious problem for NATO, because Russia uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes. The IISS considers it probable that some Russia-linked commercial vessels are used as platforms for launching, recovering or supporting drones. Such vessels often sail under foreign flags, have opaque ownership and formally do not belong to the Russian military. NATO's industrial problem is even more serious than the technological one. In a long war, what matters is not how many systems are in stock on day one, but how many can be produced, repaired and replaced every month. Russia is converting its economy to a model of sustained military production and is simultaneously creating mass production of cheap systems. The official Russian target envisages approximately 130,000 large UAVs per year by 2030. Europe remains significantly stronger economically, but this advantage guarantees nothing if it is not translated into serial production of weapons, ammunition, sensors, interceptors and spare parts. The next two to three years therefore remain a dangerous transitional period. The European roadmap envisages initial capability of the European Drone Defence Initiative and Eastern Flank Watch by the end of 2026, full capability of EDDI by the end of 2027, and full functionality of Eastern Flank Watch only by the end of 2028. Russia is already conducting drone operations, jamming navigation, intensifying its military presence at sea and using civilian and semi-civilian channels for pressure. Moscow has at least two years during which it can continue testing a system that is still being rebuilt. 📹: NATO Steadfast Deterrence-2026 military exercises

Anton Gerashchenko

68,445 views • 3 days ago

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - Reporting Window: Last 24 Hours ✳️The war is entering its final phase, but the battlefield is becoming more dangerous, not less. For the first time since the conflict began, the United States has signaled that its objectives against Iran have largely been achieved and that military operations could conclude within 2 to 3 weeks. At the same time, the operational picture tells a more complex story. Strikes inside Iran are intensifying, not slowing. Iran’s responses are becoming less concentrated but more geographically expansive. And across the region, the risk of broader escalation remains very real. This is no longer an open-ended war. It is a race between final military objectives and the risk of wider regional destabilization. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🏁 POLITICAL ENDGAME SIGNAL EMERGES President Donald Trump stated that the war could end within weeks, indicating that core objectives have been achieved, including the degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities and the disruption of its leadership structure. He also signaled that the United States does not intend to remain indefinitely engaged, suggesting that responsibility for securing critical global nfrastructure, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, may shift to regional and international stakeholders. At the same time, tensions with NATO allies are surfacing. Frustration over limited allied participation in the war has raised the possibility of a broader fracture within the Western alliance structure. Parallel reporting indicates that elements within Iran are signaling openness to a ceasefire framework, particularly if maritime access through Hormuz is restored. Taken together, this marks a clear transition: the war now has a defined political end state, even as military operations continue. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✈️ FINAL PHASE STRIKE CAMPAIGN INSIDE IRAN The intensity of strikes over the past 24 hours reflects what appears to be end-stage shaping operations. Israeli and US-aligned strikes targeted a wide range of sites across Iran, including weapons production facilities, research and development centers, and critical infrastructure nodes tied to the regime’s military capabilities. Tehran remains a central focus. Approximately twenty military-industrial sites were struck, along with infrastructure at Mehrabad Airport and locations linked to Basij coordination. A senior Quds Force engineering figure, Mahdi Vafaei, was eliminated in a precision strike. His role in developing underground weapons infrastructure across Lebanon and Syria made him a key long-term asset for Iran’s regional military network. Additional strikes hit industrial targets, including steel production facilities and a site identified as supporting materials linked to Iran’s chemical weapons development pipeline. This is not a campaign aimed at symbolic damage. It is a systematic effort to dismantle Iran’s ability to produce, coordinate, and sustain war over time. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🎯 IRANIAN RESPONSE AND CIVILIAN IMPACT Iran continues to launch missiles toward Israel, but at a reduced scale compared to earlier phases of the war. Limited salvos were recorded over the past 24 hours, causing injuries and localized damage. One of the most significant developments was the reported use of cluster munitions in central Israel, critically injuring a child and causing multiple casualties. At the same time, Iran appears to be adapting operationally. Rather than attempting large-scale saturation attacks, it is increasingly relying on smaller strikes, drones, and diversified targeting strategies. This does not indicate de-escalation. It reflects an effort to remain operational under sustained pressure. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 REGIONAL EXPANSION: THE WAR SPREADS While direct attacks on Israel have become more limited in scale, Iran is expanding the conflict across the region. In the Gulf, infrastructure in Kuwait and Bahrain was struck, including fuel storage facilities at Kuwait International Airport. Fires and damage were reported, adding to a growing pattern of attacks on energy and logistical nodes. A commercial tanker was also struck near Qatar, further extending the conflict into maritime space. These developments mark a continued shift where Iran is targeting not just Israel, but the broader economic and energy architecture of the region. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🚢 THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ The strategic center of gravity in this war is now unmistakable. The Strait of Hormuz remains contested, with ongoing disruption to global shipping and energy flows. The United States is actively evaluating options to reopen and secure the waterway, including potential direct military action against Iranian coastal capabilities. At the same time, Gulf states, particularly the UAE, are pushing for a coordinated military effort to ensure the strait is reopened. However, regional positioning remains complex, with some actors balancing public caution and private pressure. Notably, the United States has signaled that it may not take long-term responsibility for securing Hormuz, instead shifting that burden to global stakeholders. The implication is clear: control of Hormuz will determine not only the outcome of the war, but its aftermath. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔥 NORTHERN AND PROXY FRONTS Iran’s proxy network remains active, but increasingly strained. In Lebanon, Israeli strikes continue to target Hezbollah leadership and infrastructure, including the reported elimination of a senior commander in Beirut. Rocket fire persists, but Israeli operations are steadily degrading launch capabilities. In Yemen, the Houthis have formally entered the fight against Israel and are likely contributing to the expanding pattern of regional attacks, including those affecting Gulf infrastructure. Across Iraq and Syria, Iranian-aligned militias remain engaged, while underlying instability continues to create openings for additional actors. This is now a multi-front conflict, but one in which Iran’s network is under pressure across every axis. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🧠 WARFARE EVOLUTION A critical and often overlooked development is the role of advanced targeting systems. Israel is employing AI-assisted capabilities to identify threats, prioritize targets, and synchronize strikes across multiple theaters in near real time. This has significantly compressed the operational cycle, allowing for rapid follow-up strikes and reduced recovery time for Iranian forces. The result is a battlefield environment where Iran has less time to act, less time to adapt, and fewer opportunities to rebuild degraded capabilities. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📊 THE BIG PICTURE The trajectory of the war is now coming into focus. The United States and Israel are executing a campaign designed to dismantle Iran’s ability to function as a coherent military actor. Iran, in response, is expanding the conflict geographically in an attempt to impose broader costs. At the same time, political signals indicate that the war is approaching a defined end state. Markets are already reacting to this expectation, with oil prices declining and global indices rising on the assumption that the conflict may soon conclude. However, the final phase carries its own risks. As Iran’s conventional capabilities degrade, its reliance on asymmetric and regional tactics is increasing. The decisive question is no longer how the war is fought day to day. It is whether the final objectives can be secured before broader escalation overtakes them. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📘 BOOK RECOMMENDATION If you want a deeper understanding of the history, narratives, and strategic realities behind this conflict: Contested Land, Uncontested Truth This book breaks down the ideological, geopolitical, and historical forces that led directly to moments like this, with clarity and evidence. 👉 If you found this report valuable, share it. Follow for daily operational updates.
2:50

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - Reporting Window: Last 24 Hours ✳️The war is entering its final phase, but the battlefield is becoming more dangerous, not less. For the first time since the conflict began, the United States has signaled that its objectives against Iran have largely been achieved and that military operations could conclude within 2 to 3 weeks. At the same time, the operational picture tells a more complex story. Strikes inside Iran are intensifying, not slowing. Iran’s responses are becoming less concentrated but more geographically expansive. And across the region, the risk of broader escalation remains very real. This is no longer an open-ended war. It is a race between final military objectives and the risk of wider regional destabilization. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🏁 POLITICAL ENDGAME SIGNAL EMERGES President Donald Trump stated that the war could end within weeks, indicating that core objectives have been achieved, including the degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities and the disruption of its leadership structure. He also signaled that the United States does not intend to remain indefinitely engaged, suggesting that responsibility for securing critical global nfrastructure, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, may shift to regional and international stakeholders. At the same time, tensions with NATO allies are surfacing. Frustration over limited allied participation in the war has raised the possibility of a broader fracture within the Western alliance structure. Parallel reporting indicates that elements within Iran are signaling openness to a ceasefire framework, particularly if maritime access through Hormuz is restored. Taken together, this marks a clear transition: the war now has a defined political end state, even as military operations continue. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✈️ FINAL PHASE STRIKE CAMPAIGN INSIDE IRAN The intensity of strikes over the past 24 hours reflects what appears to be end-stage shaping operations. Israeli and US-aligned strikes targeted a wide range of sites across Iran, including weapons production facilities, research and development centers, and critical infrastructure nodes tied to the regime’s military capabilities. Tehran remains a central focus. Approximately twenty military-industrial sites were struck, along with infrastructure at Mehrabad Airport and locations linked to Basij coordination. A senior Quds Force engineering figure, Mahdi Vafaei, was eliminated in a precision strike. His role in developing underground weapons infrastructure across Lebanon and Syria made him a key long-term asset for Iran’s regional military network. Additional strikes hit industrial targets, including steel production facilities and a site identified as supporting materials linked to Iran’s chemical weapons development pipeline. This is not a campaign aimed at symbolic damage. It is a systematic effort to dismantle Iran’s ability to produce, coordinate, and sustain war over time. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🎯 IRANIAN RESPONSE AND CIVILIAN IMPACT Iran continues to launch missiles toward Israel, but at a reduced scale compared to earlier phases of the war. Limited salvos were recorded over the past 24 hours, causing injuries and localized damage. One of the most significant developments was the reported use of cluster munitions in central Israel, critically injuring a child and causing multiple casualties. At the same time, Iran appears to be adapting operationally. Rather than attempting large-scale saturation attacks, it is increasingly relying on smaller strikes, drones, and diversified targeting strategies. This does not indicate de-escalation. It reflects an effort to remain operational under sustained pressure. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 REGIONAL EXPANSION: THE WAR SPREADS While direct attacks on Israel have become more limited in scale, Iran is expanding the conflict across the region. In the Gulf, infrastructure in Kuwait and Bahrain was struck, including fuel storage facilities at Kuwait International Airport. Fires and damage were reported, adding to a growing pattern of attacks on energy and logistical nodes. A commercial tanker was also struck near Qatar, further extending the conflict into maritime space. These developments mark a continued shift where Iran is targeting not just Israel, but the broader economic and energy architecture of the region. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🚢 THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ The strategic center of gravity in this war is now unmistakable. The Strait of Hormuz remains contested, with ongoing disruption to global shipping and energy flows. The United States is actively evaluating options to reopen and secure the waterway, including potential direct military action against Iranian coastal capabilities. At the same time, Gulf states, particularly the UAE, are pushing for a coordinated military effort to ensure the strait is reopened. However, regional positioning remains complex, with some actors balancing public caution and private pressure. Notably, the United States has signaled that it may not take long-term responsibility for securing Hormuz, instead shifting that burden to global stakeholders. The implication is clear: control of Hormuz will determine not only the outcome of the war, but its aftermath. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔥 NORTHERN AND PROXY FRONTS Iran’s proxy network remains active, but increasingly strained. In Lebanon, Israeli strikes continue to target Hezbollah leadership and infrastructure, including the reported elimination of a senior commander in Beirut. Rocket fire persists, but Israeli operations are steadily degrading launch capabilities. In Yemen, the Houthis have formally entered the fight against Israel and are likely contributing to the expanding pattern of regional attacks, including those affecting Gulf infrastructure. Across Iraq and Syria, Iranian-aligned militias remain engaged, while underlying instability continues to create openings for additional actors. This is now a multi-front conflict, but one in which Iran’s network is under pressure across every axis. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🧠 WARFARE EVOLUTION A critical and often overlooked development is the role of advanced targeting systems. Israel is employing AI-assisted capabilities to identify threats, prioritize targets, and synchronize strikes across multiple theaters in near real time. This has significantly compressed the operational cycle, allowing for rapid follow-up strikes and reduced recovery time for Iranian forces. The result is a battlefield environment where Iran has less time to act, less time to adapt, and fewer opportunities to rebuild degraded capabilities. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📊 THE BIG PICTURE The trajectory of the war is now coming into focus. The United States and Israel are executing a campaign designed to dismantle Iran’s ability to function as a coherent military actor. Iran, in response, is expanding the conflict geographically in an attempt to impose broader costs. At the same time, political signals indicate that the war is approaching a defined end state. Markets are already reacting to this expectation, with oil prices declining and global indices rising on the assumption that the conflict may soon conclude. However, the final phase carries its own risks. As Iran’s conventional capabilities degrade, its reliance on asymmetric and regional tactics is increasing. The decisive question is no longer how the war is fought day to day. It is whether the final objectives can be secured before broader escalation overtakes them. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📘 BOOK RECOMMENDATION If you want a deeper understanding of the history, narratives, and strategic realities behind this conflict: Contested Land, Uncontested Truth This book breaks down the ideological, geopolitical, and historical forces that led directly to moments like this, with clarity and evidence. 👉 If you found this report valuable, share it. Follow for daily operational updates.

Inside_Israel_Intel

60,835 views • 5 months ago

$AMD Massive Rotation from $NVDA $INTC🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! 5-10 minutes before the bell today, last trading day of May 2026, massive rotation out of $INTC and $NVDA into $AMD. I wrote this thread this morning on what $TSM said on Energy Efficiency is now TOP Priotity and why AMD is the biggest winner. Of course I did not have influence on this rebalancing, I was just pointing out why Dr. Su saw this coming years ago. (Check the picture to understand more). I been talking about Agentic AI for like 3-4 years now. OpenClaw broke the CPU:GPU Ratio 1:4 narrative to 1:1 to 5:1 in late Jan and Feb 2026. I will link various threads where you can understand the full picture from supply chain, to TSMC expansion, and different Wafer Ratio for EPYC Venice and MI455X. Energy efficiency is a structural, long-term driver behind institutional rotation from $NVDA and $INTC into $AMD (with spillover strength in $AVGO for complementary networking/custom silicon). This isn't just short-term rebalancing, it's a massive bet on the shift from AI training (performance-at-any-cost) to inference, deployment, and embodied/agentic systems (where total cost of ownership, power draw, and scalability dominate). Precisely What I been writing about $AMD for years now, probably at least more than 5,000 threads.This is the FOMO from Institutions to own $AMD. Do know that AMD is the least owned Semi Stock among vs Peers. AI infrastructure is moving beyond massive training clusters to widespread inference for Agentic AI (running models 24/7) and embodied AI (robots, autonomous agents, edge devices). These workloads prioritize: ~Tokens-per-watt and performance-per-watt ~Lower total power consumption for data centers facing grid constraints ~Better economics at scale (cost-per-token, TCO) ~Thermal and power efficiency for on-device/robotics use Hyperscalers are now thinking more about Margin, Profitability, and $/M Tokens At $516/share. AMD Fwd PEG Ratio is still 35/100+= 0.35 AKA very cheap IMO for the growth and potential. A. Why institutions rotated out of $NVDA? Because Agentic AI is going to dominated by CPUs for years to come, moving violently to 5-10-20:1 CPU:GPU Ratio as enterprises are demanding more than 10-20 agents to run tasks. Now, that does not mean training is going away, Inference is just going to grow much faster. B. Why instiutitons rotated out of $INTC? Because AMD x86 unit share is only at 30-31% but Revenue share is already at 46.2% according to Mercury Research. And Dr. Su wants 50-60% market share, and that would mean 60-70%+ Revenue share where the CPUs TAM Is now already at $200B in 2026 and projected to be $500B by 2030. C. Why $AMD? Because AMD secured meaningful 2nm Capacity, Advanced Packaging and Memory through 2027-2028. And TSMC is expanding 2 primary 2nm Fabs toward 60-65k WPM each, and speeding up 5 2nm Fabs in Taiwan. With total up to 12 2nm Fabs through 2027/2028. 2nm Capacity is expected to be 140k+ WPM toward end of 2026, and 220-240k WPM by end of 2027. Apple has secured 35-45k WPM. And AMD does not have to worry about allocation competition until late 2027 from $AVGO for $META and $GOOGL(This may change) D. Agentic AI will evolve to 24/7 Autonomous Agent, and that will become the foundational layer for Robotic or Physical AI. Agentic AI (autonomous systems that plan, reason, use tools, self-correct, pursue long-horizon goals, and adapt) provides the high-level cognitive architecture. It turns raw perception and low-level control into useful, general-purpose behavior in the physical world. Physical AI (or Embodied AI) refers to AI that senses, understands, and acts directly in the real world through robots, actuators, and sensors. Agentic capabilities are what make this scalable and useful beyond narrow, scripted tasks. Reactive/programmed machines → To proactive, goal-oriented autonomous agents. How does this work? Autonomous Agent layer is the brain ~Vision-Language-Action models or robotics foundation models. ~Agentic loops: Planning, chain-of-thought reasoning, reflection, tool use (simulators, APIs), multi-step task decomposition. ~Persistent 24/7 operation with Memory, world modeling, continuous learning. Institutions may not like $AMD from 2022-2025, but they cannot stop this evolution and it is inevitable. Part of my main thesis for AMD to get to $5 Trillion Market Cap Long Term. Conclusion: Institutions are rotating capital toward AMD not merely for tactical rebalancing, but because Dr. Lisa Su and her team anticipated this exact inflection years in advance and have been methodically engineering AMD’s platform to dominate it. Dr. Su has long championed the convergence of Agentic AI as the high-level cognitive foundation for Physical AI and robotics. As far back as her 2023/2024 CES keynote and earlier strategic commentary, she described Physical AI (including humanoid robotics and edge autonomy) as “the next big thing”; a natural extension of agentic workflows moving from digital reasoning to real-world action. She emphasized that enabling persistent, 24/7 autonomous agents requires a full-stack approach: high-performance CPUs for orchestration and motion control, dedicated accelerators for real-time vision and multimodal inference, and open software ecosystems for rapid development. This vision aligns precisely with the structural drivers we’ve discussed. As AI shifts from training to massive-scale inference and embodiment, energy efficiency, total cost of ownership, and heterogeneous compute become first-order advantages. AMD’s Instinct MI350/MI355 series, Ryzen AI Embedded processors, and EPYC platforms deliver superior performance-per-watt and balanced CPU + GPU + NPU integration ideal for power-constrained robots that must run sophisticated agentic reasoning loops without excessive thermal or battery drain. Dr. Su has repeatedly highlighted the rising importance of CPUs in agentic systems (moving toward 1:1 or even CPU-heavy ratios with GPUs), positioning AMD’s strengths in orchestration, memory handling, and efficiency as critical for the next phase of growth. AMD is engineered for the deployment realities of embodied agents: scalable, efficient, and deployable at the edge and in physical systems. The institutional flows out of NVDA and INTC into AMD reflect recognition of this prepared leadership. Dr. Su didn’t just see the future of Agentic AI powering robotics, she has spent years building the silicon, software, and partnerships to make it practical and economically viable. This rotation signals confidence that the companies best positioned for the physical, always-on intelligence layer will capture the highest-volume opportunities in the coming decade. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!
2:25

$AMD Massive Rotation from $NVDA $INTC🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! 5-10 minutes before the bell today, last trading day of May 2026, massive rotation out of $INTC and $NVDA into $AMD. I wrote this thread this morning on what $TSM said on Energy Efficiency is now TOP Priotity and why AMD is the biggest winner. Of course I did not have influence on this rebalancing, I was just pointing out why Dr. Su saw this coming years ago. (Check the picture to understand more). I been talking about Agentic AI for like 3-4 years now. OpenClaw broke the CPU:GPU Ratio 1:4 narrative to 1:1 to 5:1 in late Jan and Feb 2026. I will link various threads where you can understand the full picture from supply chain, to TSMC expansion, and different Wafer Ratio for EPYC Venice and MI455X. Energy efficiency is a structural, long-term driver behind institutional rotation from $NVDA and $INTC into $AMD (with spillover strength in $AVGO for complementary networking/custom silicon). This isn't just short-term rebalancing, it's a massive bet on the shift from AI training (performance-at-any-cost) to inference, deployment, and embodied/agentic systems (where total cost of ownership, power draw, and scalability dominate). Precisely What I been writing about $AMD for years now, probably at least more than 5,000 threads.This is the FOMO from Institutions to own $AMD. Do know that AMD is the least owned Semi Stock among vs Peers. AI infrastructure is moving beyond massive training clusters to widespread inference for Agentic AI (running models 24/7) and embodied AI (robots, autonomous agents, edge devices). These workloads prioritize: ~Tokens-per-watt and performance-per-watt ~Lower total power consumption for data centers facing grid constraints ~Better economics at scale (cost-per-token, TCO) ~Thermal and power efficiency for on-device/robotics use Hyperscalers are now thinking more about Margin, Profitability, and $/M Tokens At $516/share. AMD Fwd PEG Ratio is still 35/100+= 0.35 AKA very cheap IMO for the growth and potential. A. Why institutions rotated out of $NVDA? Because Agentic AI is going to dominated by CPUs for years to come, moving violently to 5-10-20:1 CPU:GPU Ratio as enterprises are demanding more than 10-20 agents to run tasks. Now, that does not mean training is going away, Inference is just going to grow much faster. B. Why instiutitons rotated out of $INTC? Because AMD x86 unit share is only at 30-31% but Revenue share is already at 46.2% according to Mercury Research. And Dr. Su wants 50-60% market share, and that would mean 60-70%+ Revenue share where the CPUs TAM Is now already at $200B in 2026 and projected to be $500B by 2030. C. Why $AMD? Because AMD secured meaningful 2nm Capacity, Advanced Packaging and Memory through 2027-2028. And TSMC is expanding 2 primary 2nm Fabs toward 60-65k WPM each, and speeding up 5 2nm Fabs in Taiwan. With total up to 12 2nm Fabs through 2027/2028. 2nm Capacity is expected to be 140k+ WPM toward end of 2026, and 220-240k WPM by end of 2027. Apple has secured 35-45k WPM. And AMD does not have to worry about allocation competition until late 2027 from $AVGO for $META and $GOOGL(This may change) D. Agentic AI will evolve to 24/7 Autonomous Agent, and that will become the foundational layer for Robotic or Physical AI. Agentic AI (autonomous systems that plan, reason, use tools, self-correct, pursue long-horizon goals, and adapt) provides the high-level cognitive architecture. It turns raw perception and low-level control into useful, general-purpose behavior in the physical world. Physical AI (or Embodied AI) refers to AI that senses, understands, and acts directly in the real world through robots, actuators, and sensors. Agentic capabilities are what make this scalable and useful beyond narrow, scripted tasks. Reactive/programmed machines → To proactive, goal-oriented autonomous agents. How does this work? Autonomous Agent layer is the brain ~Vision-Language-Action models or robotics foundation models. ~Agentic loops: Planning, chain-of-thought reasoning, reflection, tool use (simulators, APIs), multi-step task decomposition. ~Persistent 24/7 operation with Memory, world modeling, continuous learning. Institutions may not like $AMD from 2022-2025, but they cannot stop this evolution and it is inevitable. Part of my main thesis for AMD to get to $5 Trillion Market Cap Long Term. Conclusion: Institutions are rotating capital toward AMD not merely for tactical rebalancing, but because Dr. Lisa Su and her team anticipated this exact inflection years in advance and have been methodically engineering AMD’s platform to dominate it. Dr. Su has long championed the convergence of Agentic AI as the high-level cognitive foundation for Physical AI and robotics. As far back as her 2023/2024 CES keynote and earlier strategic commentary, she described Physical AI (including humanoid robotics and edge autonomy) as “the next big thing”; a natural extension of agentic workflows moving from digital reasoning to real-world action. She emphasized that enabling persistent, 24/7 autonomous agents requires a full-stack approach: high-performance CPUs for orchestration and motion control, dedicated accelerators for real-time vision and multimodal inference, and open software ecosystems for rapid development. This vision aligns precisely with the structural drivers we’ve discussed. As AI shifts from training to massive-scale inference and embodiment, energy efficiency, total cost of ownership, and heterogeneous compute become first-order advantages. AMD’s Instinct MI350/MI355 series, Ryzen AI Embedded processors, and EPYC platforms deliver superior performance-per-watt and balanced CPU + GPU + NPU integration ideal for power-constrained robots that must run sophisticated agentic reasoning loops without excessive thermal or battery drain. Dr. Su has repeatedly highlighted the rising importance of CPUs in agentic systems (moving toward 1:1 or even CPU-heavy ratios with GPUs), positioning AMD’s strengths in orchestration, memory handling, and efficiency as critical for the next phase of growth. AMD is engineered for the deployment realities of embodied agents: scalable, efficient, and deployable at the edge and in physical systems. The institutional flows out of NVDA and INTC into AMD reflect recognition of this prepared leadership. Dr. Su didn’t just see the future of Agentic AI powering robotics, she has spent years building the silicon, software, and partnerships to make it practical and economically viable. This rotation signals confidence that the companies best positioned for the physical, always-on intelligence layer will capture the highest-volume opportunities in the coming decade. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!

Mike

104,109 views • 3 months ago

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).
9:00

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).

TheValueist

76,250 views • 8 months ago

🛠️ Patch Notes - Early Access Patch 2 We are incredibly excited to be releasing our largest patch yet, marking the One Month Anniversary of our Steam Early Access Launch! Patch 2 is chock full of highly requested features such as Weapon Tryout, the ability to Respec, DLSS / FSR Upscaling and Controller Remapping. Lots of Balancing and Quality of Life improvements, Audio, Animation, and Visual Effect polish as well as a multitude of bug fixes are also included! Between DLSS and FSR, numerous CPU, GPU performance improvements, and memory optimization we are confident that your experience of playing No Rest For The Wicked will be significantly smoother across a wide range of hardware. For NVIDIA users, we are excited to mention that there’s a new Game Ready Driver for No Rest for the Wicked! Be sure to check out our Patch 2 Highlight Video and the full patch notes below. ⚔️ Performance: • Performance Mode now lowers texture resolution, reducing crashes on lower-end machines • Numerous Significant CPU optimizations • Fixed performance degradation that might occur on some gamepads • Fixed numerous memory leaks • Reduced instantiation spikes for numerous objects • Disabled detail meshes on generic humanoids faces when not needed • Reduced latency, overhead and improved stability of GPU Culling • Optimized texture resolution and memory budgets for Steam Deck • Optimized Art content in Ship Prologue and its cinematics • Removed unused weapon assets to free up memory • Removed leftover developer tools to free up memory • Optimized CPU spikes of a variety of common content loading operations • Added texture streaming for character portraits during dialogue interactions to save memory • Fixed some persistent log spam being generated by potatoes in Nameless Pass • Cleaned up numerous NPC prefabs, reducing memory footprint and instantiation costs • Optimized Ambient Occlusion Rendering • Extended GPU culling usage for more cases • Configured and optimized pooling for more prefab instantiations reducing CPU spikes ⚔️ Gameplay Systems: • Added new Respec System! ⚬ Players can now Respec by examining the statue in the Cerim Crucible Atrium ⚬ Respec allows players to take back Attribute Points that have been allocated at the cost of 1 Fallen Ember per Attribute Point returned ⚬ Players can then allocate returned Attribute Points for no cost at the Respec screen or in the existing Stats screen ⚔️ Quality of Life: • All weapons can now be equipped regardless of their Attribute Requirements to allow players to try out weapons they acquire ⚬ Weapons that the player does not meet the requirements for will deal less damage through negative scaling on the Attributes that are below the weapon’s Attribute Requirements • Inventory Items can now be docked to compare them ⚬ Press F (Keyboard) or Y (Controller) to dock items and hover other items to compare • Brought back the Misc category to the Inventory ⚬ Housing items, Runes, Fallen Embers and other miscellaneous items will now be sorted into this category and free up space from other categories • Vendor screens are now sorted by item type so that items are more organized for purchase • Improved Stamina player HUD brightness for better visibility, and readability of stamina debt • Added side notifications for when Danos Sacrament Upgrades are completed • Added Floor Indicators under the Clock HUD to show the Cerim Crucible floors • Improved visibility of LB/RB button icons for Equipment HUD on Steam Deck ⚔️ Settings: • Added support for Upscaling with DLSS 3.7 and FSR 2.2 • Added custom key rebinding options for Controller • Added support for Mouse Buttons 4,5 and F1-F12 Keys for custom Keyboard bindings • Default Keyboard layout set to Mouse+WASD • Added support for worldspace Player HUD (Stamina wheel, NPC name tags, etc) brightness to UI Brightness setting ⚔️ Content Additions: • Added a new set of enchantments • All Throw runes can now be added to Spears ⚔️ Loot: • Added Pig Sticker Blueprint to Fillmore's Level 1 Shop • Added Assegai Blueprint to Whittacker's Level 1 Shop ⚔️ Balance: • Nerfed Throw runes ⚬ Reduced Poise Damage on all Throw runes ⚬ Reduced Damage on Ice Throw Rune • Nerfed Focus Regeneration enchant curve so that it no longer generates too much Focus too quickly • Focus Regeneration enchantment no longer drops with Gloves and now only drops with Helmets • This includes enchanting items at Eleanor • Falling Sky and Woodland Protector’s initial item levels were set too high and have been lowered to the intended levels ⚔️ Weapons: • Updated animation for backstabbing with Staves, Spears, Greatswords and Great Hammers • Updated visual effects for Piercing type weapon attacks (such as Spear or Rapier) ⚔️ Enemies and Bosses: • Polished Darak boss fight ⚬ Improved behavior to prevent him standing idle after attacking ⚬ Improved behavior when fighting ranged builds • Added Bite Attack to Plague Rat • Added Back Attack to Risen Axe Bruiser • Added escape logic to Risen Fire Bomber • Added Elemental Affix visual effects to Nith Brute, Nith Screamer and Shackled Brute • Adding cloth simulation to Boarskin Bruiser • Polished rigging on Plagued Boomer • Reduced camera shake intensity on Risen Hammer Bruiser, Boarskin Bruiser and Riven Twins • Smaller enemies can now smash breakable objects (barrels, crates, etc.) ⚔️ NPCs: • Changed the name of the worried woman in the Sacrament Town Square to Nell • Polishing dialog for Druo, Lucian and Everwyn • Updated the dialog for NPCs at the Cerim Gate in Nameless Pass • Added eavesdrop to Sleeping Guard Gerard in Sacrament ⚔️ Areas: • Improved collision, faders and set dressing in Prologue Ship, Orban Glades, Mariner’s Keep, Nameless Pass, Sacrament, Multiple Sacrament Interiors, Cerim Crucible, Cerim Cave, Riven Twins Boss Arena and Potion Seller Cave • Polished lighting for the ship in Prologue, Sacrament and Cerim Crucible • Updated foliage in various locations • Added physics and wind simulation to Spruce trees ⚔️ Cinematics: • Polished animations for characters in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic • Improved lighting, character rim lighting and volumetrics for the Prologue Ship Crash Outro and Inquisition Arrival cinematics • Removed a background character who was blocking part of the view in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic • Fixed cloth and camera pops in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic ⚔️ Audio: • Environment update for Sacrament: ⚬ Added Ambience Emitters for certain Residential and Vendor buildings like the Cook, Tavern, Woodcrafter and Enchantress ⚬ Updated zone beds and oneshots for unique parts of town (Cemetery, Poor Area,Training Grounds, Dasha Sanctuary) ⚬ The church near the cemetery now has bells ringing to service playing at certain times of day, followed by churchgoers praying and chanting from behind the doors. ⚬ Updated ambience for Sacrament Town Square to feel busier during the day ⚬ Updated environment audio for the Cerim Gate zone in Mountain Pass • Increased audio buffer to help alleviate audio crackle artifacts • Increased available audio resources to help prevent sounds from dropping out during long play sessions • Updated audio for Cerim Vision cinematic • Updated audio mix for Barrel and Crate destruction • Saluting Guards in Sacrament now have sound • Added Weapon-specific Impacts on parrying and blocking actions • Added ladder sliding sound effects for Kickdown Ladders • Added sound effects for going down Ladders • Added new sound effects for Plague-Enchanted weapons • Polished audio for Bounties enemies • Fixed missing sounds for Plagued Mutant Soldier • Fixed rain sounds appearing in Sacrament Interiors • Fixed enchantment-specific weapon whooshes cutting a bit too early • Fixed NPCs not making footstep sounds when walking around • Fixed environment states sometimes not resetting when returning to the main menu ⚔️ VFX: • Blood effects are now juicier and used more often! • Improved blood visual effects attachment to characters bodies from attacking and getting hit • Increased intensity of shiny item drop VFX ⚔️ Bounties and Challenges: • Updated Crustacean Conundrum bounty to spawn 14 Crabs while still only requiring 8 Crabs be killed to complete ⚔️ Localization: • Added and updated localized text in many places across multiple languages • Added localization support for new Controller Remapping screen and for various missing localized elements • Fixed incorrect font on the Activities screen ⚔️ Bug Fixes: • Fixed various enchantments on unique weapons and rings that weren’t working properly • Fixed Rested Bonuses for sleeping in beds • Fixed Key Items respawning after pick up • Fixed navigation in Nameless Pass which was preventing certain enemies and the Riven Twins boss from patrolling and moving to the player • Fixed Echo Knight falling off the arena and blocking progress • Fixed Cerim Armor missing upgrades at Filmore • Fixed Risen Pavise, Eye of the Beholder and Wooden Howler Shields not showing their proper models • Fixed SHIFT key not being recognized in the Main Menu • Fixed certain environment textures overriding certain armor textures • Fixed certain armor having missing or incorrect cloth simulation • Fixed rigging on certain armor • Fixed The Wallow boss attacks not having sound effects • Fixed Falling Sky Blueprint not giving the Unique version of the weapon when crafting • Fixed an issue where completed but not yet turned in bounty/challenge rewards were being automatically given to the player at reset • Fixed wall cannons not firing in Cerim Crucible • Fixed XP UI not showing “Max Level” after reaching the level cap • Fixed Level and XP UI being present without a Character selected in the Main Menu • Fixed “Long Area Name” appearing on the map where map is unavailable (such as Cerim Crucible) • Fixed being able to skip through locked doors in The Shallows • Fixed players getting stuck at the end of the entrance corridor in the Echo Knight Arena • Fixed Enchant Item Challenge counting enchanted items that are picked up • Fixed mortuary guard popping in on screen during Spoken and Unspoken quest • Fixed extra Elsa map marker during the Spoken and Unspoken quest • Fixed Giles and Petra standing instead of sitting on the chairs in Caroline’s Inn • Fixed Arrows not hitting Plagued Wolf • Fixed Wolf and Plagued Wolf target point • Fixed Tanth Knight getting stuck during patrolling in Mariner’s Keep at Endgame state • Fixed Darak leaving his shield in Orban Glades when he escapes • Fixed chest opening VFX in Performance and Balanced quality presets • Fixed Wolf having a dance party after death • Fixed Chest floating in the air in Mariner’s Keep • Fixed incorrect texture on the Crafting Table • Fixed 4096x2160 resolution appearing as 256x135 aspect ratio, instead displays as 1.9:1 • Fixed overblown bonfire lighting at The Shallows • Removed rogue rim light at The Shallows • Removed lighting debug shortcut See the full patch notes here -
1:30

🛠️ Patch Notes - Early Access Patch 2 We are incredibly excited to be releasing our largest patch yet, marking the One Month Anniversary of our Steam Early Access Launch! Patch 2 is chock full of highly requested features such as Weapon Tryout, the ability to Respec, DLSS / FSR Upscaling and Controller Remapping. Lots of Balancing and Quality of Life improvements, Audio, Animation, and Visual Effect polish as well as a multitude of bug fixes are also included! Between DLSS and FSR, numerous CPU, GPU performance improvements, and memory optimization we are confident that your experience of playing No Rest For The Wicked will be significantly smoother across a wide range of hardware. For NVIDIA users, we are excited to mention that there’s a new Game Ready Driver for No Rest for the Wicked! Be sure to check out our Patch 2 Highlight Video and the full patch notes below. ⚔️ Performance: • Performance Mode now lowers texture resolution, reducing crashes on lower-end machines • Numerous Significant CPU optimizations • Fixed performance degradation that might occur on some gamepads • Fixed numerous memory leaks • Reduced instantiation spikes for numerous objects • Disabled detail meshes on generic humanoids faces when not needed • Reduced latency, overhead and improved stability of GPU Culling • Optimized texture resolution and memory budgets for Steam Deck • Optimized Art content in Ship Prologue and its cinematics • Removed unused weapon assets to free up memory • Removed leftover developer tools to free up memory • Optimized CPU spikes of a variety of common content loading operations • Added texture streaming for character portraits during dialogue interactions to save memory • Fixed some persistent log spam being generated by potatoes in Nameless Pass • Cleaned up numerous NPC prefabs, reducing memory footprint and instantiation costs • Optimized Ambient Occlusion Rendering • Extended GPU culling usage for more cases • Configured and optimized pooling for more prefab instantiations reducing CPU spikes ⚔️ Gameplay Systems: • Added new Respec System! ⚬ Players can now Respec by examining the statue in the Cerim Crucible Atrium ⚬ Respec allows players to take back Attribute Points that have been allocated at the cost of 1 Fallen Ember per Attribute Point returned ⚬ Players can then allocate returned Attribute Points for no cost at the Respec screen or in the existing Stats screen ⚔️ Quality of Life: • All weapons can now be equipped regardless of their Attribute Requirements to allow players to try out weapons they acquire ⚬ Weapons that the player does not meet the requirements for will deal less damage through negative scaling on the Attributes that are below the weapon’s Attribute Requirements • Inventory Items can now be docked to compare them ⚬ Press F (Keyboard) or Y (Controller) to dock items and hover other items to compare • Brought back the Misc category to the Inventory ⚬ Housing items, Runes, Fallen Embers and other miscellaneous items will now be sorted into this category and free up space from other categories • Vendor screens are now sorted by item type so that items are more organized for purchase • Improved Stamina player HUD brightness for better visibility, and readability of stamina debt • Added side notifications for when Danos Sacrament Upgrades are completed • Added Floor Indicators under the Clock HUD to show the Cerim Crucible floors • Improved visibility of LB/RB button icons for Equipment HUD on Steam Deck ⚔️ Settings: • Added support for Upscaling with DLSS 3.7 and FSR 2.2 • Added custom key rebinding options for Controller • Added support for Mouse Buttons 4,5 and F1-F12 Keys for custom Keyboard bindings • Default Keyboard layout set to Mouse+WASD • Added support for worldspace Player HUD (Stamina wheel, NPC name tags, etc) brightness to UI Brightness setting ⚔️ Content Additions: • Added a new set of enchantments • All Throw runes can now be added to Spears ⚔️ Loot: • Added Pig Sticker Blueprint to Fillmore's Level 1 Shop • Added Assegai Blueprint to Whittacker's Level 1 Shop ⚔️ Balance: • Nerfed Throw runes ⚬ Reduced Poise Damage on all Throw runes ⚬ Reduced Damage on Ice Throw Rune • Nerfed Focus Regeneration enchant curve so that it no longer generates too much Focus too quickly • Focus Regeneration enchantment no longer drops with Gloves and now only drops with Helmets • This includes enchanting items at Eleanor • Falling Sky and Woodland Protector’s initial item levels were set too high and have been lowered to the intended levels ⚔️ Weapons: • Updated animation for backstabbing with Staves, Spears, Greatswords and Great Hammers • Updated visual effects for Piercing type weapon attacks (such as Spear or Rapier) ⚔️ Enemies and Bosses: • Polished Darak boss fight ⚬ Improved behavior to prevent him standing idle after attacking ⚬ Improved behavior when fighting ranged builds • Added Bite Attack to Plague Rat • Added Back Attack to Risen Axe Bruiser • Added escape logic to Risen Fire Bomber • Added Elemental Affix visual effects to Nith Brute, Nith Screamer and Shackled Brute • Adding cloth simulation to Boarskin Bruiser • Polished rigging on Plagued Boomer • Reduced camera shake intensity on Risen Hammer Bruiser, Boarskin Bruiser and Riven Twins • Smaller enemies can now smash breakable objects (barrels, crates, etc.) ⚔️ NPCs: • Changed the name of the worried woman in the Sacrament Town Square to Nell • Polishing dialog for Druo, Lucian and Everwyn • Updated the dialog for NPCs at the Cerim Gate in Nameless Pass • Added eavesdrop to Sleeping Guard Gerard in Sacrament ⚔️ Areas: • Improved collision, faders and set dressing in Prologue Ship, Orban Glades, Mariner’s Keep, Nameless Pass, Sacrament, Multiple Sacrament Interiors, Cerim Crucible, Cerim Cave, Riven Twins Boss Arena and Potion Seller Cave • Polished lighting for the ship in Prologue, Sacrament and Cerim Crucible • Updated foliage in various locations • Added physics and wind simulation to Spruce trees ⚔️ Cinematics: • Polished animations for characters in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic • Improved lighting, character rim lighting and volumetrics for the Prologue Ship Crash Outro and Inquisition Arrival cinematics • Removed a background character who was blocking part of the view in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic • Fixed cloth and camera pops in the Inquisition Arrival cinematic ⚔️ Audio: • Environment update for Sacrament: ⚬ Added Ambience Emitters for certain Residential and Vendor buildings like the Cook, Tavern, Woodcrafter and Enchantress ⚬ Updated zone beds and oneshots for unique parts of town (Cemetery, Poor Area,Training Grounds, Dasha Sanctuary) ⚬ The church near the cemetery now has bells ringing to service playing at certain times of day, followed by churchgoers praying and chanting from behind the doors. ⚬ Updated ambience for Sacrament Town Square to feel busier during the day ⚬ Updated environment audio for the Cerim Gate zone in Mountain Pass • Increased audio buffer to help alleviate audio crackle artifacts • Increased available audio resources to help prevent sounds from dropping out during long play sessions • Updated audio for Cerim Vision cinematic • Updated audio mix for Barrel and Crate destruction • Saluting Guards in Sacrament now have sound • Added Weapon-specific Impacts on parrying and blocking actions • Added ladder sliding sound effects for Kickdown Ladders • Added sound effects for going down Ladders • Added new sound effects for Plague-Enchanted weapons • Polished audio for Bounties enemies • Fixed missing sounds for Plagued Mutant Soldier • Fixed rain sounds appearing in Sacrament Interiors • Fixed enchantment-specific weapon whooshes cutting a bit too early • Fixed NPCs not making footstep sounds when walking around • Fixed environment states sometimes not resetting when returning to the main menu ⚔️ VFX: • Blood effects are now juicier and used more often! • Improved blood visual effects attachment to characters bodies from attacking and getting hit • Increased intensity of shiny item drop VFX ⚔️ Bounties and Challenges: • Updated Crustacean Conundrum bounty to spawn 14 Crabs while still only requiring 8 Crabs be killed to complete ⚔️ Localization: • Added and updated localized text in many places across multiple languages • Added localization support for new Controller Remapping screen and for various missing localized elements • Fixed incorrect font on the Activities screen ⚔️ Bug Fixes: • Fixed various enchantments on unique weapons and rings that weren’t working properly • Fixed Rested Bonuses for sleeping in beds • Fixed Key Items respawning after pick up • Fixed navigation in Nameless Pass which was preventing certain enemies and the Riven Twins boss from patrolling and moving to the player • Fixed Echo Knight falling off the arena and blocking progress • Fixed Cerim Armor missing upgrades at Filmore • Fixed Risen Pavise, Eye of the Beholder and Wooden Howler Shields not showing their proper models • Fixed SHIFT key not being recognized in the Main Menu • Fixed certain environment textures overriding certain armor textures • Fixed certain armor having missing or incorrect cloth simulation • Fixed rigging on certain armor • Fixed The Wallow boss attacks not having sound effects • Fixed Falling Sky Blueprint not giving the Unique version of the weapon when crafting • Fixed an issue where completed but not yet turned in bounty/challenge rewards were being automatically given to the player at reset • Fixed wall cannons not firing in Cerim Crucible • Fixed XP UI not showing “Max Level” after reaching the level cap • Fixed Level and XP UI being present without a Character selected in the Main Menu • Fixed “Long Area Name” appearing on the map where map is unavailable (such as Cerim Crucible) • Fixed being able to skip through locked doors in The Shallows • Fixed players getting stuck at the end of the entrance corridor in the Echo Knight Arena • Fixed Enchant Item Challenge counting enchanted items that are picked up • Fixed mortuary guard popping in on screen during Spoken and Unspoken quest • Fixed extra Elsa map marker during the Spoken and Unspoken quest • Fixed Giles and Petra standing instead of sitting on the chairs in Caroline’s Inn • Fixed Arrows not hitting Plagued Wolf • Fixed Wolf and Plagued Wolf target point • Fixed Tanth Knight getting stuck during patrolling in Mariner’s Keep at Endgame state • Fixed Darak leaving his shield in Orban Glades when he escapes • Fixed chest opening VFX in Performance and Balanced quality presets • Fixed Wolf having a dance party after death • Fixed Chest floating in the air in Mariner’s Keep • Fixed incorrect texture on the Crafting Table • Fixed 4096x2160 resolution appearing as 256x135 aspect ratio, instead displays as 1.9:1 • Fixed overblown bonfire lighting at The Shallows • Removed rogue rim light at The Shallows • Removed lighting debug shortcut See the full patch notes here -

No Rest for the Wicked

184,300 views • 2 years ago

$ASTI Ascent Solar Technologies Space and Drone Solar Panels The "Going to Zero" or Mispriced Space/Drone Solar Play Intro and comparison to $RKLB and $RDW panels Let’s get the ugly stuff out of the way first. $ASTI is a distressed penny stock with a ~$5M-$10M market cap. • They burn millions in cash. • 2024 Revenue: ~$40k. 2025 Revenue (YTD): ~$60k. • They generate less revenue than a single Tesla Model Y. • They have diluted shareholders relentlessly. $ASTI just raised $2M in December with the potential of $3.5M more via warrants while being a ~$5M mcap "company". Yikes. To most, this is "uninvestable trash." Stay away. Full stop. So why did I buy ~5% of the float? IF the technology works and IF they execute then I believe this is a massive market pricing dislocation about to inflect. They have been grinding for years and may finally be hitting an inflection point. $RKLB Rocketlab is the king of space solar and they are my second largest position overall, but here is why $ASTI might be a very high risk but asymmetric bet in Space & Defense right now. 1. The Tech Pivot: Flexible CIGS vs. The World Ascent started in 2005 but pivoted 2 years ago from consumer to pure-play Space & Defense. They have sunk ~$250M and 20 years of R&D into proprietary CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) thin-film technology while building out fully domestic and vertically integrated manufacturing capabilities. The Physics: • Thickness: 0.03 mm (Thinner than paper). • Flexibility: Wraps around drones/satellites; rolls up like a poster. • Durability: "Self-Healing" capabilities against space radiation. Can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and keep working. Can handle shocks/vibration. Does not shatter. The Metric that Matters: Specific Power (W/kg) (aka energy to weight ratio) In space, mass means cost and difficult decision decisions. • Rocket Lab ($RKLB) / Spectrolab: ~150 W/kg (System level). • Ascent Solar ($ASTI): ~1,960 W/kg (Module level). $ASTI is roughly 10x lighter for the same power output potential (mass-wise). This frees up design limitations and cost. 2. The Competition: $RKLB & $RDW Rocket Lab (SolAero) & Redwire (iROSA): • Tech: Rigid Crystal Cells (Multi-junction) embedded in a fabric mesh. • Pros: Extreme Efficiency (~30%+). Perfect for limited surface area. • Cons: Heavy, Brittle, Expensive ($3k-$10k per Watt). Manufacturing multi-junction cells (SolAero) involves slowly growing crystals in a vacuum chamber. With radiation the panels degrade and loose efficiency over time which will limit the satellite lifespan. • Use Case: James Webb Telescope, Flagship missions. Ascent Solar (ASTI): • Tech: Flexible Thin-Film on Plastic. • Pros: Ultra-light, Durable, Cheap ($500-$1k per Watt). Manufacturing CIGS is roughly similar to printing newspapers (roll-to-roll). The panels are radiation degradation resistant and will outlive the satellite • Cons: Lower Efficiency (~17.5%). Requires 2x surface area. • Use Case: Mega-Constellations (Starlink/Amazon Leo), Small/Low cost satellites, Drones, Deformable surfaces. The lower efficiency is not an ASTI failing. It is the inherent physics trade-off of not using glass/rigid silicone. The downside however is increased atmospheric drag with very larger/massive panel sheets. Because ASTI modules are ~50% less efficient than rigid panels, they require ~2x the physical surface area to generate the same amount of power. In GEO (High Orbit): Drag doesn't matter. Weight savings are king. A massive solar array allows for more sensors and longer project lifespan. ASTI is highly competitive here. In LEO (Low Orbit): Atmospheric drag is real. A massive solar array acts like a large parachute, causing the satellite to de-orbit faster unless it burns more fuel to stay up. At LEO, smaller satellites are a better fit for ASTI. 3. Durability & Radiation "Self-Healing" Radiation Hardness This is ASTI's "Ace in the Hole" for physics. The Problem: In space, high-energy protons (radiation) smash into solar cells, creating atomic "defects" that trap electrons. Over time, this kills the panel's power output (degradation). The CIGS Advantage: CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) material has a unique property where heat (annealing) allows the atomic structure to relax and "heal" these defects. Self-Healing: Because CIGS heals at relatively low temperatures (often achieved just by the sun heating the panel), it suffers significantly less degradation than traditional Silicon or even some GaAs panels over long missions in high-radiation belts (like MEO or GEO). Lifespan: While a rigid GaAs panel might lose 15-20% of its power over 15 years (enough to kill a satellite), CIGS panels heal and can maintain a flatter power curve, potentially outlasting the satellite itself in high-radiation orbits. 4. Brittleness & Flexibility ASTI (CIGS on Polyimide): Flexible. You can roll it like a poster. It can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and the hole will just be a dead spot; the rest of the panel keeps working. It does not shatter. Redwire (ROSA) & Rocket Lab (SolAero): Brittle Cells on a Flex Blanket. $RDW's ROSA (Roll-Out Solar Array) typically uses rigid multi-junction cells (made by SolAero/Rocket Lab or Spectrolab) mounted on a flexible mesh fabric. The Risk: If you bend the cells too far, they crack. They rely on the mesh backing for flexibility, but the active generating material is still a brittle crystal wafer. Much heavier, more expensive, and less durable than $ASTI's option 5. The Inflection Point (Why Now?) After years of silent struggle, late 2025 has seen an explosion of activity. Recent Agreements (Nov/Dec 2025): NovaSpark: Hydrogen-powered military drones. $ASTI panels generate power in the field → NovaSpark creates hydrogen fuel. CisLunar Industries: Integrating ASTI solar with power conversion hardware for deep space longevity. Defiant Space: A strategic alliance to act as the "door opener" for classified DoD/NATO programs. More headlines: Ascent Solar Technologies Provides Leading Space Company with Thin-Film PV modules for Spacecraft Power Generation Testing in Cislunar Space December 03, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Delivers Thin-Film PV for Saltwater Environment Durability and Space-Based Power Beaming Testing October 14, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Enters Teaming Agreement with Emtel Energy USA to Advance Thin-Film PV Energy Storage Capabilities September 16, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Signs MOU with Star Catcher Industries to Improve Power Capabilities for Thin-Film Solar Technology in Space August 28, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Establishes Rapid Thin-Film PV Delivery Process to Provide Customized Space Solar Products Ahead of Schedule on Mission Enabling Timelines August 07, 2025 08:00 ET The Pipeline (From Aug Corporate Presentation) 18 new NDA's signed in 2025. They are field testing with 3 major players: • Company A: Mega-constellation (+2,500 satellites). • Company B: Space Defense (Explicitly mentioned "Golden Dome"). • Company C: Satellite Manufacturer (30-200 unit scale). Management: New board members include a former founding member of SpaceX and a retired Air Force General and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting (acquisitions expert). The company started in 2005 based out of Colorado, but two years ago pivoted to Space & Defense and away from consumer applications. Made in USA: Defense contracts heavily favor domestic supply chains. ASTI manufactures in Colorado. This is a huge moat against cheap Chinese solar. In their Q3 report they note that their market has seen sudden recent acceleration. The space solar industry is currently only capable of 8 to 12 MW per year of production meanwhile the demand is growing to over 100 MW per year. 6. The Risk (The Sword of Damocles) ⚠️ This is critical. $ASTI just raised ~$2M in December. Attached to that raise are ~2 Million Warrants with a strike price of $1.70. These are exercisable immediately. If the stock rips to $3.00, warrant holders exercise at $1.70 and dump on the market for a risk-free 76% profit. This creates a massive "sell wall" and potential 40% dilution of the float. Summary: This is a binary bet. • Bear Case: They run out of cash in 6 months, dilution spirals, stock goes to $0. • Bull Case: They land one of the "Company A/B/C" contracts. Revenue jumps from $60k to projected $20M+ in 2026. The stock reprices from a "bankrupt penny stock" to a "critical defense/space supplier." I have gradually accumulated ~5% of the float. I am ready for it to go to zero. But if the space economy demands "Cheap, Light, and Durable," $ASTI is the only public pure-play. Disclaimer: This is a very high-risk microcap. Do your own due diligence. Not financial advice.
3:04

$ASTI Ascent Solar Technologies Space and Drone Solar Panels The "Going to Zero" or Mispriced Space/Drone Solar Play Intro and comparison to $RKLB and $RDW panels Let’s get the ugly stuff out of the way first. $ASTI is a distressed penny stock with a ~$5M-$10M market cap. • They burn millions in cash. • 2024 Revenue: ~$40k. 2025 Revenue (YTD): ~$60k. • They generate less revenue than a single Tesla Model Y. • They have diluted shareholders relentlessly. $ASTI just raised $2M in December with the potential of $3.5M more via warrants while being a ~$5M mcap "company". Yikes. To most, this is "uninvestable trash." Stay away. Full stop. So why did I buy ~5% of the float? IF the technology works and IF they execute then I believe this is a massive market pricing dislocation about to inflect. They have been grinding for years and may finally be hitting an inflection point. $RKLB Rocketlab is the king of space solar and they are my second largest position overall, but here is why $ASTI might be a very high risk but asymmetric bet in Space & Defense right now. 1. The Tech Pivot: Flexible CIGS vs. The World Ascent started in 2005 but pivoted 2 years ago from consumer to pure-play Space & Defense. They have sunk ~$250M and 20 years of R&D into proprietary CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) thin-film technology while building out fully domestic and vertically integrated manufacturing capabilities. The Physics: • Thickness: 0.03 mm (Thinner than paper). • Flexibility: Wraps around drones/satellites; rolls up like a poster. • Durability: "Self-Healing" capabilities against space radiation. Can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and keep working. Can handle shocks/vibration. Does not shatter. The Metric that Matters: Specific Power (W/kg) (aka energy to weight ratio) In space, mass means cost and difficult decision decisions. • Rocket Lab ($RKLB) / Spectrolab: ~150 W/kg (System level). • Ascent Solar ($ASTI): ~1,960 W/kg (Module level). $ASTI is roughly 10x lighter for the same power output potential (mass-wise). This frees up design limitations and cost. 2. The Competition: $RKLB & $RDW Rocket Lab (SolAero) & Redwire (iROSA): • Tech: Rigid Crystal Cells (Multi-junction) embedded in a fabric mesh. • Pros: Extreme Efficiency (~30%+). Perfect for limited surface area. • Cons: Heavy, Brittle, Expensive ($3k-$10k per Watt). Manufacturing multi-junction cells (SolAero) involves slowly growing crystals in a vacuum chamber. With radiation the panels degrade and loose efficiency over time which will limit the satellite lifespan. • Use Case: James Webb Telescope, Flagship missions. Ascent Solar (ASTI): • Tech: Flexible Thin-Film on Plastic. • Pros: Ultra-light, Durable, Cheap ($500-$1k per Watt). Manufacturing CIGS is roughly similar to printing newspapers (roll-to-roll). The panels are radiation degradation resistant and will outlive the satellite • Cons: Lower Efficiency (~17.5%). Requires 2x surface area. • Use Case: Mega-Constellations (Starlink/Amazon Leo), Small/Low cost satellites, Drones, Deformable surfaces. The lower efficiency is not an ASTI failing. It is the inherent physics trade-off of not using glass/rigid silicone. The downside however is increased atmospheric drag with very larger/massive panel sheets. Because ASTI modules are ~50% less efficient than rigid panels, they require ~2x the physical surface area to generate the same amount of power. In GEO (High Orbit): Drag doesn't matter. Weight savings are king. A massive solar array allows for more sensors and longer project lifespan. ASTI is highly competitive here. In LEO (Low Orbit): Atmospheric drag is real. A massive solar array acts like a large parachute, causing the satellite to de-orbit faster unless it burns more fuel to stay up. At LEO, smaller satellites are a better fit for ASTI. 3. Durability & Radiation "Self-Healing" Radiation Hardness This is ASTI's "Ace in the Hole" for physics. The Problem: In space, high-energy protons (radiation) smash into solar cells, creating atomic "defects" that trap electrons. Over time, this kills the panel's power output (degradation). The CIGS Advantage: CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) material has a unique property where heat (annealing) allows the atomic structure to relax and "heal" these defects. Self-Healing: Because CIGS heals at relatively low temperatures (often achieved just by the sun heating the panel), it suffers significantly less degradation than traditional Silicon or even some GaAs panels over long missions in high-radiation belts (like MEO or GEO). Lifespan: While a rigid GaAs panel might lose 15-20% of its power over 15 years (enough to kill a satellite), CIGS panels heal and can maintain a flatter power curve, potentially outlasting the satellite itself in high-radiation orbits. 4. Brittleness & Flexibility ASTI (CIGS on Polyimide): Flexible. You can roll it like a poster. It can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and the hole will just be a dead spot; the rest of the panel keeps working. It does not shatter. Redwire (ROSA) & Rocket Lab (SolAero): Brittle Cells on a Flex Blanket. $RDW's ROSA (Roll-Out Solar Array) typically uses rigid multi-junction cells (made by SolAero/Rocket Lab or Spectrolab) mounted on a flexible mesh fabric. The Risk: If you bend the cells too far, they crack. They rely on the mesh backing for flexibility, but the active generating material is still a brittle crystal wafer. Much heavier, more expensive, and less durable than $ASTI's option 5. The Inflection Point (Why Now?) After years of silent struggle, late 2025 has seen an explosion of activity. Recent Agreements (Nov/Dec 2025): NovaSpark: Hydrogen-powered military drones. $ASTI panels generate power in the field → NovaSpark creates hydrogen fuel. CisLunar Industries: Integrating ASTI solar with power conversion hardware for deep space longevity. Defiant Space: A strategic alliance to act as the "door opener" for classified DoD/NATO programs. More headlines: Ascent Solar Technologies Provides Leading Space Company with Thin-Film PV modules for Spacecraft Power Generation Testing in Cislunar Space December 03, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Delivers Thin-Film PV for Saltwater Environment Durability and Space-Based Power Beaming Testing October 14, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Enters Teaming Agreement with Emtel Energy USA to Advance Thin-Film PV Energy Storage Capabilities September 16, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Signs MOU with Star Catcher Industries to Improve Power Capabilities for Thin-Film Solar Technology in Space August 28, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Establishes Rapid Thin-Film PV Delivery Process to Provide Customized Space Solar Products Ahead of Schedule on Mission Enabling Timelines August 07, 2025 08:00 ET The Pipeline (From Aug Corporate Presentation) 18 new NDA's signed in 2025. They are field testing with 3 major players: • Company A: Mega-constellation (+2,500 satellites). • Company B: Space Defense (Explicitly mentioned "Golden Dome"). • Company C: Satellite Manufacturer (30-200 unit scale). Management: New board members include a former founding member of SpaceX and a retired Air Force General and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting (acquisitions expert). The company started in 2005 based out of Colorado, but two years ago pivoted to Space & Defense and away from consumer applications. Made in USA: Defense contracts heavily favor domestic supply chains. ASTI manufactures in Colorado. This is a huge moat against cheap Chinese solar. In their Q3 report they note that their market has seen sudden recent acceleration. The space solar industry is currently only capable of 8 to 12 MW per year of production meanwhile the demand is growing to over 100 MW per year. 6. The Risk (The Sword of Damocles) ⚠️ This is critical. $ASTI just raised ~$2M in December. Attached to that raise are ~2 Million Warrants with a strike price of $1.70. These are exercisable immediately. If the stock rips to $3.00, warrant holders exercise at $1.70 and dump on the market for a risk-free 76% profit. This creates a massive "sell wall" and potential 40% dilution of the float. Summary: This is a binary bet. • Bear Case: They run out of cash in 6 months, dilution spirals, stock goes to $0. • Bull Case: They land one of the "Company A/B/C" contracts. Revenue jumps from $60k to projected $20M+ in 2026. The stock reprices from a "bankrupt penny stock" to a "critical defense/space supplier." I have gradually accumulated ~5% of the float. I am ready for it to go to zero. But if the space economy demands "Cheap, Light, and Durable," $ASTI is the only public pure-play. Disclaimer: This is a very high-risk microcap. Do your own due diligence. Not financial advice.

YeahDave

208,571 views • 9 months ago

77 Reasons Why I’ve Invested Over $8,000,000+ in MultiversX (EGLD) and Why EGLD Will Crush It in 2025 (My Investment Thesis). I publicly shared my portfolio on X. EGLD is A) Better than BTC B) Everything that ETH wants to be C) The GameStop of Crypto 1. EGLD is verifiably the most scalable (theoretically unlimited) L1 chain in the world, theoretically capable of over 10 million TPS (thanks to adaptive state sharding). 2. e-Gold is digital gold. It has the best tokenomics among all L1s, similarly scarce to BTC, with a maximum supply of 31.4 million coins. Currently, 27.68 million coins are in circulation. 3. EGLD will be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world thanks to sharding and minimal hardware requirements for running nodes. It’s already second only to Ethereum with 3,618 validator nodes. 4. EGLD has extremely low fees, around ~$0.002 per transaction. 5. EGLD is extremely secure. No wallet drains like on ETH/SOL; assets are owned natively (not via a smart contract). There is no MEV risk (front-running bots). 6. EGLD is the only chain in the world with an on-chain Guardian (two-phase verification), making it impossible for a hacker to steal your funds—even if they have your private keys (seed phrase). 7. EGLD is carbon-neutral and eco-friendly, not wasting energy like BTC and other PoW chains. It’s exceptionally efficient, scalable, global, and sustainable. 8. EGLD has the best UX in crypto. Download the xPortal wallet—it’s like discovering Apple in Web3. The interface is simple, flawless, and you barely realize you’re using crypto. Instead of addresses, you use HeroTags. The app features all dApps, everything runs smoothly, and the visuals are beautifully designed. The explorer, web wallet, etc. follow the same high-quality user experience. 9. EGLD supports native assets, unlike Ethereum, for example. 10. EGLD is the first chain to fully implement horizontal (theoretically unlimited) sharding without compromising on decentralization—unlike Solana and others that attempt vertical scaling, leading to multiple network downtimes (11+ times) and huge hardware demands for validators, ultimately harming decentralization. 11. EGLD makes setting up a validator agency extremely easy. Even complete IT beginners can do it. The UX and documentation are superb. I personally set up the “EGLDSqueeze” agency in about 30 minutes. Managing it is straightforward via the web wallet, which feels like managing a Facebook page. This simplifies decentralization enormously. 12. EGLD allows literally anyone (even your grandma) to participate in decentralization, since nodes can run on a Raspberry Pi or a relatively affordable phone. Imagine millions of people worldwide securing the network, validating transactions without even knowing it. This can’t be done with BTC, where setting up profitable mining operations is prohibitively expensive. 13. WASM-Based Virtual Machine: You can write smart contracts in your favorite language, compile them, and run them via the fastest VM in the world. 14. EGLD has been tested at an incredible 263,000 TPS using its sharding mechanism and low hardware requirements. Allegedly, by mid-next year (April), they’ll demonstrate 1,000,000 TPS. (For context: Mastercard handles around 5,000 TPS; BTC handles 5–7 TPS.) 15. EGLD is currently the most advanced L1 in terms of scalability, security, decentralization, UX, eco-friendliness, and tokenomics. It’s the only chain that has genuinely solved the Blockchain Trilemma and is ready to onboard 1 billion people into crypto—users who won’t even realize they’re interacting with crypto. 16. EGLD is perfectly positioned for AI projects—AI agents, AI tools, or a so-called “Truth Machine” that monitors other AIs on-chain, documenting what’s true and comparing different AI outputs (some of which may be censored or biased), ensuring people don’t get confused or scammed in an AI-driven world. 17. The EGLD team is the hardest-working team I’ve ever encountered. I had the honor of meeting many of them personally, and can attest that their pace—even during a bear market—is extraordinary. 18. EGLD’s development team is exceptionally active on GitHub, continually improving their network and actively committing code. 19. EGLD plans to introduce an update reducing block time to 600ms (down from ~6 seconds), which would make the chain essentially unrivaled. 20. EGLD is effectively the only usable L1 in Europe, and the team has direct connections within the EU government—extremely bullish for the project. 21. EGLD provides top-tier on-chain governance not only for the MultiversX (EGLD) protocol but also for DeFi projects (e.g., xExchange, MEX). 22. EGLD plans to expand to the US, likely opening offices in Austin, Texas. This could put them in direct contact with Elon Musk (if it hasn’t happened already), as he’s involved with If he’s done his research, he’d discover there’s simply no better L1 worldwide. 23. EGLD solved fully implemented sharding, perfect tokenomics, and top-tier architecture with just $5M, whereas other chains failed to do so even with $100M+. The second-best sharding network, NEAR, needed $100M, has worse tokenomics, and its sharding isn’t fully implemented yet. Its UX also doesn’t compare. Owning NEAR was like comparing a VW Golf R to a Porsche GT3—EGLD is the Porsche GT3. 24. According to Similarweb, EGLD has significantly high traffic relative to other chains with market caps 100x larger. The market cap vs. web traffic discrepancy is huge, which is a strong indicator of EGLD’s potential. 25. EGLD has the most active and dedicated community relative to its user base, with users who believe in the technology, have full faith in the team, and remain loyal despite price volatility—because they use the chain and know there’s nothing better. 26. Check other chains’ active user counts on X (Twitter) and compare it with the followers of EGLD’s founders and main network accounts, versus those with 30x, 50x, or 100x larger market caps. 27. Visit the MultiversX website to observe the futuristic design and presentation, then compare it to other chains that appear nearly a decade behind in design and branding. 28. EGLD hosts the xDay Global event, showcasing updates, new builders, projects in the ecosystem, and major announcements—similar to Apple’s Keynotes—delivered in a highly professional, goosebump-inducing atmosphere. The next event is in Korea, the second-biggest crypto market after the US. Check out their previous xDay after-movie to see why this is extremely bullish. 29. EGLD is moving forward with plans for the first regulated, audited EU stablecoin under MiCa regulation, made possible by acquiring xMoney, which I view as a “Stripe” for crypto/fiat, offering everything from user solutions to merchant services—potentially the future of payments. 30. Greg Siourouni recently joined EGLD, having been an executive director at SUI Foundation. He’s now co-founder of xMoney Global. xMoney (formerly UTrust, with token UTK) is owned and founded by the MultiversX Labs team. A stablecoin might be introduced soon, which would be massively bullish given xMoney’s roadmap. They recently announced integrations with Binance Pay—both ways. 31. EGLD prioritizes user safety, believing it’s the only feasible approach once the network scales to serve a billion people—many of whom are retail users with little to no security awareness. 32. EGLD offers “Sovereign Chains,” letting you effectively clone their chain without heavy development, set up your own validators, and leverage their unlimited scalability. Any blockchain (ETH, BTC, SOL) struggling with scalability, decentralization, or security could run an ultra-fast, scalable, and secure L2 on EGLD’s Sovereign Chain, meeting top enterprise requirements. No one else has really done this. The Sovereign Chain demo achieved astonishing TPS and has an SDK. 33. No downtime since inception. 34. No shard takeover attacks have occurred. 35. Extremely fast—soon 600ms block time will be in place. 36. ESDTs – The best token standard available: fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible, DeFi assets—everything is native and highly customizable. 37. Top-tier composability of assets and smart contracts. 38. Integrated DNS at protocol level with HeroTags (nicknames) instead of long addresses. 39. Asynchronous calls are supported. 40. Cross-shard transfers, execution, reverts, and calls are seamlessly integrated. 41. The best staking system in the space. Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) is far more efficient than Proof of Work (PoW). 42. Built-in Delegation and Staking Provider system, with over 125K delegators. 43. Complete support for liquid staked assets, fostering decentralization rather than centralization. 44. TransferRoles for ESDT and other advanced operations. 45. Composable tasks on-chain for more sophisticated DeFi workflows. 46. MultiTransfer and asset execution within one transaction. 47. Re-entrancy protection is built-in by design. 48. Storage for ESDT assets goes beyond a linear approach, optimizing performance. 49. No integer overflows thanks to integrated safeMath operations. 50. Integrated crypto opcodes in the VM, enhancing security and performance. 51. Support for BigFloats, BigInts, and BigDecimals, enabling advanced financial calculations on-chain. 52. No sandwich attacks, plus front-running and MEV protection. 53. Relayed Transactions, simplifying user interactions and fees. 54. Smart Accounts featuring data tries and multiple built-in functions. 55. Generalized Paymaster solutions, enabling flexible fee models. 56. Subscriptions for recurring or automated on-chain payments. 57. Web2-like usability with Web3 functionality, bridging mainstream adoption. 58. StakingV4 for improved decentralization. 59. Enhanced MEV protection rolling out to safeguard users. 60. Parallel execution is coming soon, boosting throughput. 61. 1 million TPS is on the roadmap, targeted for demonstration. 62. 600ms block time is also coming soon. 63. Reduced cross-shard processing is planned to improve efficiency. 64. ZK everywhere (PI²): “prove everything” approach is coming. 65. AsyncV3 is in development for more complex cross-contract interactions. 66. Scalability enhancements for Merkle Tries or a new data model are being explored. 67. Linear storage on the VM is forthcoming. 68. A dynamic language interpreter at the VM is also planned. 69. Rumors suggest that MultiversX (EGLD) is building a “Truth Machine” on their L1—an essential, game-changing tool for AI verification and societal impact. 70. The entire team features individuals with PhDs in mathematics and physics, and many are former engineers at Google, IBM, and similar companies. 71. Over 56% of the network’s supply is staked, showcasing strong community involvement. 72. More than 6,772,347 accounts have been created on the network. 73. A total of 476,627,710 transactions have been processed on-chain without any outages or hacks. 74. EGLD has built a massive ecosystem over time. While not as numerous in project count as Solana, its market cap is ~100x smaller, yet it has far superior tokenomics and technology. The projects that do exist, like Hatom Protocol, are top-tier in UX, security, and advanced features. Hatom will soon introduce USH, a truly high-quality, decentralized stablecoin. 75. On competing chains, automated transactions aren’t easily or cheaply executed, whereas on MultiversX, tools like let you do this for free (with near-zero fees). 76. No other chain combines such a strong team and long-term vision where every product meets extreme security and UX standards like MultiversX does. This is why I see it as the “next Apple” in Web3. 77. MultiversX has a new CMO – Adam Bates, a former CMO at the Cardano Foundation. He was behind the success of Cardano’s huge marketing campaign and has a very good relationship with Charles Hoskinson. Thanks to him, Beniamin Mincu (the founder of MultiversX) was likely introduced, and now they will probably discuss how both blockchains can help each other, as well as any other potential collaborations we don’t yet know about. This is also extremely bullish. #EGLD is undeniably the most Scalable, Advanced, Secure, and User-friendly L1 supercomputer ever created. It’s built to SHAPE THE FUTURE. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 27/6/2024 - EGLDSqueeze - SUMMARY: HERE IS NO 2ND BEST. EGLD IS ONLY ONE BLOCKCHAIN THAT CAN RULE THEM ALL. ✅ UNLIMITED SCALING ✅ SCARCE AS BTC ✅ PROGRAMMABLE AS ETH ✅ NO DOWNTIME AS SOL ✅ UI/UX OF Apple ✅ SHARDING DONE BEFORE NEAR & TON ✅ BEST WALLET xPortal WITH GUARDIAN Price prediction (NFA|DYOR): My reasoning is that the real market cap as of December 23, 2024...if we take into account the value of other cryptocurrencies such as BTC, SOL, ETH, AVAX, NEAR, TON, Cardano, BNB, XRP, and so forth, plus the existence of meme coins with valuations above 20 billion USD, or even games nobody plays anymore that still have valuations above 800 million shows that EGLD’s current market cap of approximately 942 million USD is incredibly low. From a technological standpoint, user experience, and other relevant aspects, compared to SOL, NEAR, TON, AVAX, and other L1 protocols, EGLD’s market cap should realistically be around 100 billion USD. Therefore, my prediction and investment thesis is a minimum of a 100x increase from its current price (+-SOL marketcap). MultiversX is ready to onboard 1 billion people to the blockchain. From a long-term perspective, it could even reach a market cap of 1 trillion USD, which is roughly half of where BTC is right now. That would be approximately a 1060x gain from the current market cap. 1 EGLD (MultiversX) is for $34 (only 31.4M max supply) think about this. Not financial advice. Again. There is no 2nd best L1. Position yourself where the puck is going, then wait at the goal until the goal gets there Apes together, strong. Ape alone, weak. We Don't Worry. We Just Win. Shape The Future
5:34

77 Reasons Why I’ve Invested Over $8,000,000+ in MultiversX (EGLD) and Why EGLD Will Crush It in 2025 (My Investment Thesis). I publicly shared my portfolio on X. EGLD is A) Better than BTC B) Everything that ETH wants to be C) The GameStop of Crypto 1. EGLD is verifiably the most scalable (theoretically unlimited) L1 chain in the world, theoretically capable of over 10 million TPS (thanks to adaptive state sharding). 2. e-Gold is digital gold. It has the best tokenomics among all L1s, similarly scarce to BTC, with a maximum supply of 31.4 million coins. Currently, 27.68 million coins are in circulation. 3. EGLD will be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world thanks to sharding and minimal hardware requirements for running nodes. It’s already second only to Ethereum with 3,618 validator nodes. 4. EGLD has extremely low fees, around ~$0.002 per transaction. 5. EGLD is extremely secure. No wallet drains like on ETH/SOL; assets are owned natively (not via a smart contract). There is no MEV risk (front-running bots). 6. EGLD is the only chain in the world with an on-chain Guardian (two-phase verification), making it impossible for a hacker to steal your funds—even if they have your private keys (seed phrase). 7. EGLD is carbon-neutral and eco-friendly, not wasting energy like BTC and other PoW chains. It’s exceptionally efficient, scalable, global, and sustainable. 8. EGLD has the best UX in crypto. Download the xPortal wallet—it’s like discovering Apple in Web3. The interface is simple, flawless, and you barely realize you’re using crypto. Instead of addresses, you use HeroTags. The app features all dApps, everything runs smoothly, and the visuals are beautifully designed. The explorer, web wallet, etc. follow the same high-quality user experience. 9. EGLD supports native assets, unlike Ethereum, for example. 10. EGLD is the first chain to fully implement horizontal (theoretically unlimited) sharding without compromising on decentralization—unlike Solana and others that attempt vertical scaling, leading to multiple network downtimes (11+ times) and huge hardware demands for validators, ultimately harming decentralization. 11. EGLD makes setting up a validator agency extremely easy. Even complete IT beginners can do it. The UX and documentation are superb. I personally set up the “EGLDSqueeze” agency in about 30 minutes. Managing it is straightforward via the web wallet, which feels like managing a Facebook page. This simplifies decentralization enormously. 12. EGLD allows literally anyone (even your grandma) to participate in decentralization, since nodes can run on a Raspberry Pi or a relatively affordable phone. Imagine millions of people worldwide securing the network, validating transactions without even knowing it. This can’t be done with BTC, where setting up profitable mining operations is prohibitively expensive. 13. WASM-Based Virtual Machine: You can write smart contracts in your favorite language, compile them, and run them via the fastest VM in the world. 14. EGLD has been tested at an incredible 263,000 TPS using its sharding mechanism and low hardware requirements. Allegedly, by mid-next year (April), they’ll demonstrate 1,000,000 TPS. (For context: Mastercard handles around 5,000 TPS; BTC handles 5–7 TPS.) 15. EGLD is currently the most advanced L1 in terms of scalability, security, decentralization, UX, eco-friendliness, and tokenomics. It’s the only chain that has genuinely solved the Blockchain Trilemma and is ready to onboard 1 billion people into crypto—users who won’t even realize they’re interacting with crypto. 16. EGLD is perfectly positioned for AI projects—AI agents, AI tools, or a so-called “Truth Machine” that monitors other AIs on-chain, documenting what’s true and comparing different AI outputs (some of which may be censored or biased), ensuring people don’t get confused or scammed in an AI-driven world. 17. The EGLD team is the hardest-working team I’ve ever encountered. I had the honor of meeting many of them personally, and can attest that their pace—even during a bear market—is extraordinary. 18. EGLD’s development team is exceptionally active on GitHub, continually improving their network and actively committing code. 19. EGLD plans to introduce an update reducing block time to 600ms (down from ~6 seconds), which would make the chain essentially unrivaled. 20. EGLD is effectively the only usable L1 in Europe, and the team has direct connections within the EU government—extremely bullish for the project. 21. EGLD provides top-tier on-chain governance not only for the MultiversX (EGLD) protocol but also for DeFi projects (e.g., xExchange, MEX). 22. EGLD plans to expand to the US, likely opening offices in Austin, Texas. This could put them in direct contact with Elon Musk (if it hasn’t happened already), as he’s involved with If he’s done his research, he’d discover there’s simply no better L1 worldwide. 23. EGLD solved fully implemented sharding, perfect tokenomics, and top-tier architecture with just $5M, whereas other chains failed to do so even with $100M+. The second-best sharding network, NEAR, needed $100M, has worse tokenomics, and its sharding isn’t fully implemented yet. Its UX also doesn’t compare. Owning NEAR was like comparing a VW Golf R to a Porsche GT3—EGLD is the Porsche GT3. 24. According to Similarweb, EGLD has significantly high traffic relative to other chains with market caps 100x larger. The market cap vs. web traffic discrepancy is huge, which is a strong indicator of EGLD’s potential. 25. EGLD has the most active and dedicated community relative to its user base, with users who believe in the technology, have full faith in the team, and remain loyal despite price volatility—because they use the chain and know there’s nothing better. 26. Check other chains’ active user counts on X (Twitter) and compare it with the followers of EGLD’s founders and main network accounts, versus those with 30x, 50x, or 100x larger market caps. 27. Visit the MultiversX website to observe the futuristic design and presentation, then compare it to other chains that appear nearly a decade behind in design and branding. 28. EGLD hosts the xDay Global event, showcasing updates, new builders, projects in the ecosystem, and major announcements—similar to Apple’s Keynotes—delivered in a highly professional, goosebump-inducing atmosphere. The next event is in Korea, the second-biggest crypto market after the US. Check out their previous xDay after-movie to see why this is extremely bullish. 29. EGLD is moving forward with plans for the first regulated, audited EU stablecoin under MiCa regulation, made possible by acquiring xMoney, which I view as a “Stripe” for crypto/fiat, offering everything from user solutions to merchant services—potentially the future of payments. 30. Greg Siourouni recently joined EGLD, having been an executive director at SUI Foundation. He’s now co-founder of xMoney Global. xMoney (formerly UTrust, with token UTK) is owned and founded by the MultiversX Labs team. A stablecoin might be introduced soon, which would be massively bullish given xMoney’s roadmap. They recently announced integrations with Binance Pay—both ways. 31. EGLD prioritizes user safety, believing it’s the only feasible approach once the network scales to serve a billion people—many of whom are retail users with little to no security awareness. 32. EGLD offers “Sovereign Chains,” letting you effectively clone their chain without heavy development, set up your own validators, and leverage their unlimited scalability. Any blockchain (ETH, BTC, SOL) struggling with scalability, decentralization, or security could run an ultra-fast, scalable, and secure L2 on EGLD’s Sovereign Chain, meeting top enterprise requirements. No one else has really done this. The Sovereign Chain demo achieved astonishing TPS and has an SDK. 33. No downtime since inception. 34. No shard takeover attacks have occurred. 35. Extremely fast—soon 600ms block time will be in place. 36. ESDTs – The best token standard available: fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible, DeFi assets—everything is native and highly customizable. 37. Top-tier composability of assets and smart contracts. 38. Integrated DNS at protocol level with HeroTags (nicknames) instead of long addresses. 39. Asynchronous calls are supported. 40. Cross-shard transfers, execution, reverts, and calls are seamlessly integrated. 41. The best staking system in the space. Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) is far more efficient than Proof of Work (PoW). 42. Built-in Delegation and Staking Provider system, with over 125K delegators. 43. Complete support for liquid staked assets, fostering decentralization rather than centralization. 44. TransferRoles for ESDT and other advanced operations. 45. Composable tasks on-chain for more sophisticated DeFi workflows. 46. MultiTransfer and asset execution within one transaction. 47. Re-entrancy protection is built-in by design. 48. Storage for ESDT assets goes beyond a linear approach, optimizing performance. 49. No integer overflows thanks to integrated safeMath operations. 50. Integrated crypto opcodes in the VM, enhancing security and performance. 51. Support for BigFloats, BigInts, and BigDecimals, enabling advanced financial calculations on-chain. 52. No sandwich attacks, plus front-running and MEV protection. 53. Relayed Transactions, simplifying user interactions and fees. 54. Smart Accounts featuring data tries and multiple built-in functions. 55. Generalized Paymaster solutions, enabling flexible fee models. 56. Subscriptions for recurring or automated on-chain payments. 57. Web2-like usability with Web3 functionality, bridging mainstream adoption. 58. StakingV4 for improved decentralization. 59. Enhanced MEV protection rolling out to safeguard users. 60. Parallel execution is coming soon, boosting throughput. 61. 1 million TPS is on the roadmap, targeted for demonstration. 62. 600ms block time is also coming soon. 63. Reduced cross-shard processing is planned to improve efficiency. 64. ZK everywhere (PI²): “prove everything” approach is coming. 65. AsyncV3 is in development for more complex cross-contract interactions. 66. Scalability enhancements for Merkle Tries or a new data model are being explored. 67. Linear storage on the VM is forthcoming. 68. A dynamic language interpreter at the VM is also planned. 69. Rumors suggest that MultiversX (EGLD) is building a “Truth Machine” on their L1—an essential, game-changing tool for AI verification and societal impact. 70. The entire team features individuals with PhDs in mathematics and physics, and many are former engineers at Google, IBM, and similar companies. 71. Over 56% of the network’s supply is staked, showcasing strong community involvement. 72. More than 6,772,347 accounts have been created on the network. 73. A total of 476,627,710 transactions have been processed on-chain without any outages or hacks. 74. EGLD has built a massive ecosystem over time. While not as numerous in project count as Solana, its market cap is ~100x smaller, yet it has far superior tokenomics and technology. The projects that do exist, like Hatom Protocol, are top-tier in UX, security, and advanced features. Hatom will soon introduce USH, a truly high-quality, decentralized stablecoin. 75. On competing chains, automated transactions aren’t easily or cheaply executed, whereas on MultiversX, tools like let you do this for free (with near-zero fees). 76. No other chain combines such a strong team and long-term vision where every product meets extreme security and UX standards like MultiversX does. This is why I see it as the “next Apple” in Web3. 77. MultiversX has a new CMO – Adam Bates, a former CMO at the Cardano Foundation. He was behind the success of Cardano’s huge marketing campaign and has a very good relationship with Charles Hoskinson. Thanks to him, Beniamin Mincu (the founder of MultiversX) was likely introduced, and now they will probably discuss how both blockchains can help each other, as well as any other potential collaborations we don’t yet know about. This is also extremely bullish. #EGLD is undeniably the most Scalable, Advanced, Secure, and User-friendly L1 supercomputer ever created. It’s built to SHAPE THE FUTURE. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 27/6/2024 - EGLDSqueeze - SUMMARY: HERE IS NO 2ND BEST. EGLD IS ONLY ONE BLOCKCHAIN THAT CAN RULE THEM ALL. ✅ UNLIMITED SCALING ✅ SCARCE AS BTC ✅ PROGRAMMABLE AS ETH ✅ NO DOWNTIME AS SOL ✅ UI/UX OF Apple ✅ SHARDING DONE BEFORE NEAR & TON ✅ BEST WALLET xPortal WITH GUARDIAN Price prediction (NFA|DYOR): My reasoning is that the real market cap as of December 23, 2024...if we take into account the value of other cryptocurrencies such as BTC, SOL, ETH, AVAX, NEAR, TON, Cardano, BNB, XRP, and so forth, plus the existence of meme coins with valuations above 20 billion USD, or even games nobody plays anymore that still have valuations above 800 million shows that EGLD’s current market cap of approximately 942 million USD is incredibly low. From a technological standpoint, user experience, and other relevant aspects, compared to SOL, NEAR, TON, AVAX, and other L1 protocols, EGLD’s market cap should realistically be around 100 billion USD. Therefore, my prediction and investment thesis is a minimum of a 100x increase from its current price (+-SOL marketcap). MultiversX is ready to onboard 1 billion people to the blockchain. From a long-term perspective, it could even reach a market cap of 1 trillion USD, which is roughly half of where BTC is right now. That would be approximately a 1060x gain from the current market cap. 1 EGLD (MultiversX) is for $34 (only 31.4M max supply) think about this. Not financial advice. Again. There is no 2nd best L1. Position yourself where the puck is going, then wait at the goal until the goal gets there Apes together, strong. Ape alone, weak. We Don't Worry. We Just Win. Shape The Future

Daniel Veroc

50,587 views • 1 year ago