this is a very stupid take driven by emotion
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
14
Well, where he's right is that Air Supremacy doesn't really work when the enemy can bomb all of your air strips within a few hours flight away.
Fighter jets don't go very far on a tank of fuel, and even if you're trying to do arial refueling, it's a huge pain to try to have to fly hours to put a bomb on a target and then fly hours back again - and your refueling aircraft as also kind of sitting ducks as well.
Iran has just called into question the whole concept of air-first doctrine.
Fighter jets don't go very far on a tank of fuel, and even if you're trying to do arial refueling, it's a huge pain to try to have to fly hours to put a bomb on a target and then fly hours back again - and your refueling aircraft as also kind of sitting ducks as well.
Iran has just called into question the whole concept of air-first doctrine.
@cjd I'm a huge skeptic and critic of air power but using this war as a litmus test is ridiculous. this was supposed to be a quick little raid, not a full blown total war, and that's how it was planned and executed
relying on air power without ground forces invading simultaneously is extremely stupid and has literally never worked in the entire history of military aviation. didn't need this war to learn that
relying on air power without ground forces invading simultaneously is extremely stupid and has literally never worked in the entire history of military aviation. didn't need this war to learn that
> this was supposed to be a quick little raid, not a full blown total war
Over the past couple of decades I've heard a million variants of "we weren't really fighting to win" - particularly in relation to Afghanistan. I have to admit I'm kind of jaded about it.
When you enter some kind of a conflict and you come out worse off than you started, the correct word for that is Losing.
I think we learn something in every war. What we learned this time is that if a hypersonic can get past interceptors and C-RAM, then it can deny naval access and destroy nearby bases, which completely undermines an air first strategy.
It also challenges how you would even get infantry and equipment into the area to stage a ground invasion. You can't sail too close if they can just shoot your ships.
If interceptors, C-RAM, and DEW can't be improved to the point of beating hypersonics, this might be the end of war as we know it...
Over the past couple of decades I've heard a million variants of "we weren't really fighting to win" - particularly in relation to Afghanistan. I have to admit I'm kind of jaded about it.
When you enter some kind of a conflict and you come out worse off than you started, the correct word for that is Losing.
I think we learn something in every war. What we learned this time is that if a hypersonic can get past interceptors and C-RAM, then it can deny naval access and destroy nearby bases, which completely undermines an air first strategy.
It also challenges how you would even get infantry and equipment into the area to stage a ground invasion. You can't sail too close if they can just shoot your ships.
If interceptors, C-RAM, and DEW can't be improved to the point of beating hypersonics, this might be the end of war as we know it...
@cjd it obviously WAS meant to be just a raid. the fact that it (predictably) spiraled out of control does not change that fact. and you can feel free to try to find a single example of me saying we're winning the war or are going to win the war
for people who actually know what they're talking about there are no lessons here. I'm sure it's very illuminating for all the freshly minted military experts though
for people who actually know what they're talking about there are no lessons here. I'm sure it's very illuminating for all the freshly minted military experts though
> it obviously WAS meant to be just a raid.
> the fact that it (predictably) spiraled out of control does not change that fact.
If it was predictable (as you correctly pointed out), then it doesn't seem as if the 'it was just going to be a raid' statement can also be true at the same time. It seems unlikely that both can be true.
> the fact that it (predictably) spiraled out of control does not change that fact.
If it was predictable (as you correctly pointed out), then it doesn't seem as if the 'it was just going to be a raid' statement can also be true at the same time. It seems unlikely that both can be true.
It's true that there are a lot of idiots telling other idiots what they want to hear. However, initial moves were undoubtedly intended to draw the US into an unwinnable scenario. Escalation was the desired outcome.
The scenario of 'it'll just be a raid' seems too retarded to entertain.
The scenario of 'it'll just be a raid' seems too retarded to entertain.
It's not only Israeli lobbyists affecting the decision tree. There are many influential players sitting at the table. A lot of planners went into this knowing what was going to happen and a lot of the players are going to make very large fortunes. Just because they weren't staged for a full-scale conflict doesn't mean that wasn't the intent.
These two gentlemen have sussed the truth.
The morass was predictable. The leadership chose this war.
This incompetence narrative script is nonsense.
The morass was predictable. The leadership chose this war.
This incompetence narrative script is nonsense.
By some people, certainly.
I have a feeling the planning was something more like Israel dragging the US into something that the US couldn't do anything but escalate. So the idea that the US was planning anything with the intention of any kind of victory is just not really in the cards.
But I think our resident military expert has muted the thread, so it's just us now...
But I think our resident military expert has muted the thread, so it's just us now...
Replies
0
No replies yet.