5 ms·

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine already seems to be a meat grinder, despite the existence of drones and aircraft.

meheleventyone 3y ago
The vast majority of the killing has always been via indirect fire. Drones and aircraft are just part of that.
15155 3y ago
Our doctrine was built around aircraft, suppression of enemy air defenses, and then domination through missiles and total air superiority. We flew more combat sorties on Day 1 of Desert Storm than both of these nations have flown in two years of this conflict. Soviet (and by extension both of these nations) doctrine places emphasis on overwhelming manpower, artillery, and air defense. We have an order of magnitude more combat aircraft of all classes than both of these nations combined. We have more AH-64s that are allocated just to training than both of these nations have helicopters in active service combined. Ukraine is already giving Russia's AD systems a run for their money using our hand-me-downs from 30 or more years ago. Their aircraft have no stealth technology, ancient avionics, ancient targeting systems, last-generation anti-radiation missiles. Russian AD systems stand zero chance against modern SEAD doctrine: we can see this in effect every time Ukraine uses decoy-based saturation attacks combined with cruise missiles. They simply do not have enough capable batteries to sustain a meaningful air defense when faced with a financially-superior adversary. We have tens of thousands of AGM-88 HARMs in stock: Russia has less than 2000 estimated S-300/S-400 acquisition radars. Nuclear weapons are Russia's only real military trump card; Russia would cease to exist if confined to conventional munitions in a "peer" conflict. There exists exactly zero chance we end up in a Ukraine style meat grinder, we're deploying nuclear weapons long before that happens. Also: Ukraine isn't engaged in total war and has no ability to wage it. The United States would (and has in past conflicts) engage in strategic bombing campaigns on absolutely every single manufacturing facility, every supply chain, in every complicit nation. In a US-Russia or US-China conflict, Iran doesn't get to sell drones or any other munitions without receiving 40 tons of JDAMs on their manufacturing facilities.
- baybal2 3y ago
  [dead]
- circlefavshape 3y ago
  "Our"? Are you from the US?
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  > The United States would (and has in past conflicts) engage in strategic bombing campaigns on absolutely every single manufacturing facility, every supply chain, in every complicit nation. In a US-Russia or US-China conflict, Iran doesn't get to sell drones or any other munitions without receiving 40 tons of JDAMs on their manufacturing facilities. It depends on which country it is and how many of them there are. China and the Soviet Union were both helping Vietnam, for example.
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    Note that heavy industry can be very resilient against bombing; during WW2, the allies dropped over 30 kilotons of conventional bombs on and around the german Leunawerke, which were still running at double digit percentage efficiency; modern targetting and improved explosives would obviously help, but disabling manufacturing by bombs is not as trivial as one might assume! TL;DR 40 tons of JDAMs are not enough to achieve anything lasting.
    - mlrtime 3y ago
      Perhaps, but are they as effective as laser guided arms we had even in Iraq? I can still remember watching original video of a laser guided bomb/missle hitting the exact right spot to get to the depths of the target to later cause massive damage.
    - 15155 3y ago
      How does a WW2 unguided bombing campaign remotely compare to <30m CEP munitions, ton-for-ton?
- 3y ago

meheleventyone 3y ago

The vast majority of the killing has always been via indirect fire. Drones and aircraft are just part of that.

15155 3y ago

Our doctrine was built around aircraft, suppression of enemy air defenses, and then domination through missiles and total air superiority. We flew more combat sorties on Day 1 of Desert Storm than both of these nations have flown in two years of this conflict. Soviet (and by extension both of these nations) doctrine places emphasis on overwhelming manpower, artillery, and air defense. We have an order of magnitude more combat aircraft of all classes than both of these nations combined. We have more AH-64s that are allocated just to training than both of these nations have helicopters in active service combined. Ukraine is already giving Russia's AD systems a run for their money using our hand-me-downs from 30 or more years ago. Their aircraft have no stealth technology, ancient avionics, ancient targeting systems, last-generation anti-radiation missiles. Russian AD systems stand zero chance against modern SEAD doctrine: we can see this in effect every time Ukraine uses decoy-based saturation attacks combined with cruise missiles. They simply do not have enough capable batteries to sustain a meaningful air defense when faced with a financially-superior adversary. We have tens of thousands of AGM-88 HARMs in stock: Russia has less than 2000 estimated S-300/S-400 acquisition radars. Nuclear weapons are Russia's only real military trump card; Russia would cease to exist if confined to conventional munitions in a "peer" conflict. There exists exactly zero chance we end up in a Ukraine style meat grinder, we're deploying nuclear weapons long before that happens. Also: Ukraine isn't engaged in total war and has no ability to wage it. The United States would (and has in past conflicts) engage in strategic bombing campaigns on absolutely every single manufacturing facility, every supply chain, in every complicit nation. In a US-Russia or US-China conflict, Iran doesn't get to sell drones or any other munitions without receiving 40 tons of JDAMs on their manufacturing facilities.

baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
circlefavshape 3y ago
"Our"? Are you from the US?
joshuaissac 3y ago
> The United States would (and has in past conflicts) engage in strategic bombing campaigns on absolutely every single manufacturing facility, every supply chain, in every complicit nation. In a US-Russia or US-China conflict, Iran doesn't get to sell drones or any other munitions without receiving 40 tons of JDAMs on their manufacturing facilities. It depends on which country it is and how many of them there are. China and the Soviet Union were both helping Vietnam, for example.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  Note that heavy industry can be very resilient against bombing; during WW2, the allies dropped over 30 kilotons of conventional bombs on and around the german Leunawerke, which were still running at double digit percentage efficiency; modern targetting and improved explosives would obviously help, but disabling manufacturing by bombs is not as trivial as one might assume! TL;DR 40 tons of JDAMs are not enough to achieve anything lasting.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    Perhaps, but are they as effective as laser guided arms we had even in Iraq? I can still remember watching original video of a laser guided bomb/missle hitting the exact right spot to get to the depths of the target to later cause massive damage.
  - 15155 3y ago
    How does a WW2 unguided bombing campaign remotely compare to <30m CEP munitions, ton-for-ton?
3y ago