3 ms·

a lot also depends on the future military strategy. A Predator uses less fuel than a Raptor (and the fuel consumption by the machine itself is just a tip of the

a lot also depends on the future military strategy. A Predator uses less fuel than a Raptor (and the fuel consumption by the machine itself is just a tip of the pyramid consisting of all the support, service and maintenance personnel and equipment that machine requires). It is also much easier from the supply logistics point of view to strike using a couple of Hellfire from a drone [or using other precision-strike-from-a-distance weapons] sent from a far away base than to send helicopters with people or to send [even light] armoured ground assault from a close-by base ("Black Hawk down" - compare with modern day strikes in Pakistan). So the military becomes greener. I.e. by minimizing amount of people and heavy equipment involved at the "last mile" there is much savings to be realized.

yardie 16y ago
You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people. Hellfire's work great when the enemy is out in a field with no civilians around. But that is not the case. The enemy is walking around amongst civilians in places like an open market, a row of houses. These are poor places for hellfires because using one there means that now you've got a bunch of people that were neutral on the subject before pissed off at you.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  placing boots on the ground causes a lot of collateral civilian casualties (look at, for example, Iraq civilian casualties) and make the people hate invaders and leads to insurgency. The "Black Hawk down" i mentioned is a real story of the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29 where USA had 19 KIA and 83 WIA, and Somalis - anywhere between 300 and 2000. A precision hit to the building which was the original target in the Battle of Mogadishu would cause much less casualties on the both sides (and much less fossil fuel burned). >You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people. that is just a generic slogan.
  - yardie 16y ago
    Which building would they elect as the target. It's not like the enemy is walking around in broad daylight under view of the eye n the sky. And it's not just an expression it's how every successful campaign has been one. If it was possible to wage an air only war. Don't you think the US, with he largest airforce in the world would be fully invested?

yardie 16y ago

You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people. Hellfire's work great when the enemy is out in a field with no civilians around. But that is not the case. The enemy is walking around amongst civilians in places like an open market, a row of houses. These are poor places for hellfires because using one there means that now you've got a bunch of people that were neutral on the subject before pissed off at you.

VladRussian 16y ago
placing boots on the ground causes a lot of collateral civilian casualties (look at, for example, Iraq civilian casualties) and make the people hate invaders and leads to insurgency. The "Black Hawk down" i mentioned is a real story of the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29 where USA had 19 KIA and 83 WIA, and Somalis - anywhere between 300 and 2000. A precision hit to the building which was the original target in the Battle of Mogadishu would cause much less casualties on the both sides (and much less fossil fuel burned). >You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people. that is just a generic slogan.
- yardie 16y ago
  Which building would they elect as the target. It's not like the enemy is walking around in broad daylight under view of the eye n the sky. And it's not just an expression it's how every successful campaign has been one. If it was possible to wage an air only war. Don't you think the US, with he largest airforce in the world would be fully invested?