this is a very stupid take driven by emotion
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
4
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
Replies
20
Okay so basically you're saying that People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About already knew that hypersonics are alpha-dominant, C-RAM is dead, interceptors are expensive fireworks, and ships are all sitting ducks?
Because, I mean, is there any major military in the world that has stopped buying these things?
Who are these People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About? Are there more of them or is it just you?
And, did you ever announce that you think hypersonics make ships obsolete before this battle, or were you keeping it a secret?
Because, I mean, is there any major military in the world that has stopped buying these things?
Who are these People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About? Are there more of them or is it just you?
And, did you ever announce that you think hypersonics make ships obsolete before this battle, or were you keeping it a secret?
@cjd are you fucking kidding me? people have been talking about the missile threat to carriers since the 1950s
point defense systems like CIWS and C-RAM have been known-worthless since BEFORE they came online. they're last ditch defenses. ever do the math on that yourself? engagement window, accuracy, number of rounds fired, effect on target? of course not. you trusted the brochure
the same thing applies to terminal phase interception only the problem is MUCH WORSE. you think patriot missiles worked in gulf 1? that iron dome has EVER been effective on even minor ballistic threats? do you know ANYTHING about this? the patriot missiles were known ineffective in 1992. I was reading about iron dome's shitty real world performance as early as 2015, just a few years after it went online
it has been known since the invention of ballistic missiles that boost phase interception is the only realistic way to kill them. terminal phase interception is pure fantasy. it's technologically impossible to achieve a high hit rate
the only new technology on this battlefield since WWII is guided air defense missiles (1950s technology) and that's not an exaggeration. effective military drones were operational by 1942. they sucked but the writing was on the wall
why does the US buy this shit? because 1) it's not *completely* worthless in all scenarios but mainly 2) because procurement is driven by bribes and graft, not military effectiveness. why does a military project get split up so work goes to companies in 45 states, tripling the cost and doubling the timeline? because that's what congress demands before it'll sign off on it
why are other countries developing systems similar to ours? because they can't think for themselves and just copy us
now what did iran do? did it try to go symmetric and build a bunch of stealth planes and THAAD clones and carriers and all the other trillion dollar horseshit we have? no, it didn't. iran stands alone as the one country on earth that actually built its military for effective wartime performance from first principles, instead of trying to be a worse version of the US military
point defense systems like CIWS and C-RAM have been known-worthless since BEFORE they came online. they're last ditch defenses. ever do the math on that yourself? engagement window, accuracy, number of rounds fired, effect on target? of course not. you trusted the brochure
the same thing applies to terminal phase interception only the problem is MUCH WORSE. you think patriot missiles worked in gulf 1? that iron dome has EVER been effective on even minor ballistic threats? do you know ANYTHING about this? the patriot missiles were known ineffective in 1992. I was reading about iron dome's shitty real world performance as early as 2015, just a few years after it went online
it has been known since the invention of ballistic missiles that boost phase interception is the only realistic way to kill them. terminal phase interception is pure fantasy. it's technologically impossible to achieve a high hit rate
the only new technology on this battlefield since WWII is guided air defense missiles (1950s technology) and that's not an exaggeration. effective military drones were operational by 1942. they sucked but the writing was on the wall
why does the US buy this shit? because 1) it's not *completely* worthless in all scenarios but mainly 2) because procurement is driven by bribes and graft, not military effectiveness. why does a military project get split up so work goes to companies in 45 states, tripling the cost and doubling the timeline? because that's what congress demands before it'll sign off on it
why are other countries developing systems similar to ours? because they can't think for themselves and just copy us
now what did iran do? did it try to go symmetric and build a bunch of stealth planes and THAAD clones and carriers and all the other trillion dollar horseshit we have? no, it didn't. iran stands alone as the one country on earth that actually built its military for effective wartime performance from first principles, instead of trying to be a worse version of the US military
The only way we'd be at least somewhat effective at getting missiles in the boost phase would be putting weapons in space. Which has a whole set of problems that go along with that, since I'm pretty sure we have treaties banning that sort of thing. Not that treaties really matter anymore.
My initial thought regarding missiles is that what probably wins is to sneak up with a submarine and then release a drone swarm which a few minutes after release, they're too spread out to use missiles on... But it's quite a shift, boats not being that useful.
I didn't see his reply, but it confirms my question that People Who Know What They're Talking About includes him, and excludes strategists for every major military in the world, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I didn't see his reply, but it confirms my question that People Who Know What They're Talking About includes him, and excludes strategists for every major military in the world, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 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...
So this 'hypothetical raid' was planned out to assassinated a head-of-state along with a large portion of that state's military decision making structure... in a joint operation... as a starting move... during diplomatic negotiations.
How is it possible for you to arrive at a conclusion that some mid-level planners cooked this up in a conference room (completely unaware of the outcome), sent it upstream for approval, then watched unknowingly as billions of dollars of assets were moved into place.
You're just trolling. No one is that stupid.
How is it possible for you to arrive at a conclusion that some mid-level planners cooked this up in a conference room (completely unaware of the outcome), sent it upstream for approval, then watched unknowingly as billions of dollars of assets were moved into place.
You're just trolling. No one is that stupid.
I think he muted the thread.
But all I can say is I hope one day to be as smart as he thinks he is.
But all I can say is I hope one day to be as smart as he thinks he is.
indeed.
very gentlemanly of you.
A proper intellectual delights in being shown his own folly.
it is a service, after all.
very gentlemanly of you.
A proper intellectual delights in being shown his own folly.
it is a service, after all.
Haha it's why I'm here, to learn things...
If I had all the answers I'd keep em to myself, I'm a greedy bastard :]
If I had all the answers I'd keep em to myself, I'm a greedy bastard :]
@cjd @Zardoz @Quentel @deprecated_ii Clever guy but the whole loyalists posting an L is clearly a sore spot. Of course I love to troll 
The whole scenario makes plenty of sense when you understand the people in charge actually just aren't on our team.
The whole scenario makes plenty of sense when you understand the people in charge actually just aren't on our team.
I wasn't in the room with them and neither were you. It really does seem like too much of a leap to assume that everyone involved is/was an absolute idiot.