3 ms·

I think what a lot of countries, like Germany (German here), for a lesson, is that your current stock of weapons is most useful in the beginning of a conflict a

I think what a lot of countries, like Germany (German here), for a lesson, is that your current stock of weapons is most useful in the beginning of a conflict as the conflict rapidly changes weapon development and your weapon will need heavy upgrades or they are no longer useful. All western weapons get less useful by the minute.

jojobas 3y ago
This could be true if it wasn't Russia using a bigger and bigger fraction of pre-1991 weapons as the war goes on. If anything, Western precision artillery and rocketry became more and more useful in disrupting Russian logistics.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  The OP was about progress in Russian Lancet drone manufacturing.
another2another 3y ago
>All western weapons get less useful by the minute. Currently the west seems to be using Ukraine to offload their old inventory and get more recent replacements, which is why we see lots of old soviet fighters (e.g. by Croatia and Slovenia I believe?) being donated and replaced by the F-35. Also why Ukraine will be (probably?) using the F-16 - I personally thought it would be a great opportunity to battle test the F-35, but the US doesn't seem to be interested in that.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  I think the US fears losing an F-35 like they lost a F-117.
dotnet00 3y ago
I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion from Ukraine. What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches and firing artillery at each other. Sure there are lots of drones, but that's mainly to make up for both side's lack of guided weapons and sufficient air power to establish air supremacy. Neither of which is an issue for NATO. The situation in Ukraine has only been validating western military planning by showing that precision strike capability and air power are key.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  The Russians aren't risking their planes. They use cruise missiles and drones for behind the lines targets. I don't think the Russians lack guided weapons, they are launching dozens of cruise missiles each week. I think it's quite likely they're rationing their sophisticated weapons in case the conflict escalates. From what I've seen, the drones have been very effective. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. It's fascinating to me to see how effective artillery is, you're right about that part. The territorial war is mostly about artillery, but the drones are a force multiplier there, assisting in removing enemy artillery as well as targeting.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you that sticker-price comparison is very limited, it papers over a ton of very important details and can lead you completely astray. For instance, suppose you use $10k of ammunition to shoot down a $100 mortar shell; the sticker-price analysis says that's a bad trade, but what about the context? What if the mortar shell would have otherwise landed on equipment or personnel valued in millions of dollars? With that context, it's clear that it was actually a very good trade. That's just scratching the surface though, what if one side has is backed by strong economies and can afford $10k more than the other side can afford $100? What if one side has huge stockpiles and the other doesn't? What if the war is going to be over in hours and so attrition warfare simply isn't relevant? The whole context of the exchange must be considered.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    The Russians aren't risking their planes because they have very few pilots, who are under trained and their planes are very vulnerable to air defense without having as good of an ability to counter air defense radars. Their guided weapons have also been shown to not be as accurate as expected, considering that despite all those cruise missiles, drone and satellite surveillance, they haven't really hit many critical targets, instead mostly just terrorizing civilians. For example, a year into the war, Russia had never hit the trains carrying weapons deliveries in from Poland despite them being a pretty obvious target for a guided missile. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank is a good trade, but that is also within the price range of JDAMs, which bolsters my point that this conflict has mostly proven western planning on what kinds of tech they need to conduct a modern war to be right.

jojobas 3y ago

This could be true if it wasn't Russia using a bigger and bigger fraction of pre-1991 weapons as the war goes on. If anything, Western precision artillery and rocketry became more and more useful in disrupting Russian logistics.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
The OP was about progress in Russian Lancet drone manufacturing.

another2another 3y ago

>All western weapons get less useful by the minute. Currently the west seems to be using Ukraine to offload their old inventory and get more recent replacements, which is why we see lots of old soviet fighters (e.g. by Croatia and Slovenia I believe?) being donated and replaced by the F-35. Also why Ukraine will be (probably?) using the F-16 - I personally thought it would be a great opportunity to battle test the F-35, but the US doesn't seem to be interested in that.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
I think the US fears losing an F-35 like they lost a F-117.

dotnet00 3y ago

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion from Ukraine. What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches and firing artillery at each other. Sure there are lots of drones, but that's mainly to make up for both side's lack of guided weapons and sufficient air power to establish air supremacy. Neither of which is an issue for NATO. The situation in Ukraine has only been validating western military planning by showing that precision strike capability and air power are key.

linuxftw 3y ago
The Russians aren't risking their planes. They use cruise missiles and drones for behind the lines targets. I don't think the Russians lack guided weapons, they are launching dozens of cruise missiles each week. I think it's quite likely they're rationing their sophisticated weapons in case the conflict escalates. From what I've seen, the drones have been very effective. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. It's fascinating to me to see how effective artillery is, you're right about that part. The territorial war is mostly about artillery, but the drones are a force multiplier there, assisting in removing enemy artillery as well as targeting.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you that sticker-price comparison is very limited, it papers over a ton of very important details and can lead you completely astray. For instance, suppose you use $10k of ammunition to shoot down a $100 mortar shell; the sticker-price analysis says that's a bad trade, but what about the context? What if the mortar shell would have otherwise landed on equipment or personnel valued in millions of dollars? With that context, it's clear that it was actually a very good trade. That's just scratching the surface though, what if one side has is backed by strong economies and can afford $10k more than the other side can afford $100? What if one side has huge stockpiles and the other doesn't? What if the war is going to be over in hours and so attrition warfare simply isn't relevant? The whole context of the exchange must be considered.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  The Russians aren't risking their planes because they have very few pilots, who are under trained and their planes are very vulnerable to air defense without having as good of an ability to counter air defense radars. Their guided weapons have also been shown to not be as accurate as expected, considering that despite all those cruise missiles, drone and satellite surveillance, they haven't really hit many critical targets, instead mostly just terrorizing civilians. For example, a year into the war, Russia had never hit the trains carrying weapons deliveries in from Poland despite them being a pretty obvious target for a guided missile. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank is a good trade, but that is also within the price range of JDAMs, which bolsters my point that this conflict has mostly proven western planning on what kinds of tech they need to conduct a modern war to be right.