4 ms·
That's weird, the stinger is an amazing weapon which allows an infantry to take out an aerial threat, which is quite amazing. I don't understand why they would
by jokoon 3y ago
That's weird, the stinger is an amazing weapon which allows an infantry to take out an aerial threat, which is quite amazing.
I don't understand why they would not secure the production of that missile, or even replace it with something new.
It's not like they don't have enough money to cover all possible sorts of weapons that can exist.
- dustymcp 3y agoim thinking its doctrine, there simply havent been a need, us marines dont go in without air superiority, what good is a stinger if there are no targets?
- happosai 3y agoThe issue is, American army did not see them anymore entering a war where American infantry needs to take out aerial threats. The army assumed future wars would be killing goat herders carrying AK-47s with drone strikes. The idea was nobody would. E insane enough in the interconnected global economy to start to "real" war. And thus weapons production focused on anti-terrorism etc.
- headass 3y agonot exactly. near peer doctrine called for aerial dominance. only recently (last few years) has the US bought back SHORAD. manpads are seen as unnecessary because there’s bigger and better weapons systems for them
- Der_Einzige 3y agoMANPADs have pretty low ranges. You're mostly shooting helicopters and very low flying planes. Wikipedia claims a maximum range of 11000 feet, but the hot probability at that height is likely quite low.
- slt2021 3y agovery low flying planes is the Russian tactic against air defense
- slt2021 3y agoDifferent doctrine. Stinger is useful for LSCO (large scale combat operations) doctrine, but NATO thought it would be COIN doctrine (counter insurgency like in Afghanistan) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
- 8note 3y agoAre stingers even useful for LSCO? I get the sense Ukraine us using them as the insurgency rather than the counter-insurgency
- slt2021 3y agoturns out things like Stingers/TOW/Javelin are extremely useful in proxy wars, where NATO doesn't want to put boots/planes in the area of operations. if NATO is so loss averse and doesnt want to risk own soldiers' lives, then NATO/US doctrine should plan for proxy wars - and not blindly assume they will have air superiority everywhere
- DANmode 3y agoThey DO have air superiority - just not currently used for shorter range weapons, because they're as high in the sky as they possibly can be without being seen or hit by RUS.
- slt2021 3y agoUS did not have air superiority in proxy wars in Syria nor in Ukraine. Should the next proxy war happen in LATAM/Africa/ME - I am not sure US would rush to deploy air assets. For example - Iran/China - would US create no fly zone over these countries?
- DANmode 3y agoNATO absolutely has air superiority in Ukraine. How they choose to exercise that is an exercise for you, the reader, whoever would like - not this comment.
- nitwit005 3y agoThe article mentions them looking for a replacement prior to the recent invasion of Ukraine.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoWell Poles took Igla, removed soviet electronics, put there new modern electronics and started making Grom, which then got a birth to Piorun. I would assume that Stingers need to go through similar development as electronics from 1970s/1980s will be hard to get or very expensive.