3 ms·

The US Military Is Not Ready for the New Era of Warfare

14 points by aguaviva 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago
https://archive.ph/vJlcm https://archive.ph/vJlcm
anovikov 2y ago
In Russia-Ukraine war it works simply because neither side has a viable air force. If any of them did, theatre would have been isolated and the other side won't even be able to deploy heavy combat vehicles for inability to deliver fuel and ammunition for them. Drones impact everything but not aircraft, because they fly way higher and faster. Which means, unless U.S. does not have same drones as everyone else (if Ukraine has them, certainly U.S. can, too), their advantage only INCREASES, rather than decreases, because of drone introduction - because drones devaluates everything except air force, and USAF is stronger than all other non-US air forces in the world put together (that is, because USN air arm is a distant second).
- elmerfud 2y ago
  This is totally correct in that air power determines the domination. Even if air power can't necessarily route entrenched forces it prevents them from movement and can decimate supply lines. Not only do we have the USAF which is massive you leave out the other important thing which is the Navy's ability to deploy air power. A US carrier has more air power than most countries in the world.
- belter 2y ago
  > In Russia-Ukraine war it works simply because neither side has a viable air force. This is wrong. What happened is that the amount of anti-aircraft systems deployed prevents both sides from deploying a viable air force. No chance any F-16 or Migs can defeat systems like the Patriot or the Russian S500, that converge to targets at Mach 10. The only systems of the US Air Force with any chance of surviving on this type of environment, would be the most sophisticated stealth systems, that would not be deployed for regular operations. The future belongs to drone swarms working in tandem under the control of an AI....Sadly....
  - omnee 2y ago
    Just to add to this point further. Russia has vastly more combat aircraft than Ukraine, but has only been able to achieve local air superiority in a few areas of the contact line. Ukraine, without having anywhere close to the number of anti-air systems of advanced modern armies have denied most of its airspace to the Russian Airforce, and have shot down many aircraft including the A-50. The key assumption is that stealth would enable the USAF to operate at will within or close to air defence zones, but this has not been tested against a near peer foe.
    - anovikov 2y ago
      It's not just stealth. USAF have perfected their SEAD/DEAD operations over decades. Normal non-stealthy aircraft provided with external assets for triangulating air defence radars can do the job easily and probably, without any losses at all. Any ground-based air defences today are useless and are just a sitting duck against any modern air force. It's just that the Russia doesn't have one. I know it - i passed training as a radar unit commander for Russian radiotechnical troops. We've been trained to understand that our mission us futile and we will never see anything of value on our radars - best we can do is to try to keep them from being destroyed (by employing false emitters, strategically switching off emission when threatened, and frequently moving) and out personnel from getting killed - by explaining them that HARM's shrapnel is small and command trailers have light anti-shrapnel armour and attack comes on a very short notice, so under attack the enlisted will be a lot safer sitting on their assigned places rather than running away. When you switch on emission, you don't get to see anything today because ECMs do a very good job. But everyone can see you. That's been 25 years ago but the equipment we've been trained to operate (it was brand new back then), is still the mainstay of the Russian radar troops, such as Nebo-SV. Slightly modernised versions are entering service now but they won't do a radical difference (modernisations are mostly about using fewer components from ex-USSR countries, because they are either politically hostile or producers gone out of business, not about specs improvement, anyway). In those years, Western anti-radar equipment and tactics have vastly improved though, so if it was one-sided then, it's most certainly so now.
  - anovikov 2y ago
- hindsightbias 2y ago
  It goes both ways. If Air Superiority now means everything above 500' AGL, then your infantry is droneable. No heavy vehicles or fuel trucks needed. Seems like the Army and USAF are stuck between a rock and a fog layer. There's now another warlayer and the Key West Agreement doesn't cover it. Perhaps we need a US Drone Force, because the drones the USAF/USN are thinking about are $10M F-35 wingmen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
notinmykernel 2y ago
Is this the lobbyists for military industrial complex putting out propaganda in hopes of increasing the US military budget? I think so.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You can watch videos of what war looks like in Ukraine today. It is objectively true that war has changed dramatically. There being financial incentives to accounting for this change is a good thing.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    It still seems to be about artillery pounding shells at some place a bit away and trucks moving shells to said artillery. Infantry and armor being some statistical cost in shells. Most shells kinda wins eventually. Drones just made it even more unlikely that enemies see each other before they die of shrapnel wounds, mines, or what ever. Those videos are propaganda.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      "eventually" is doing some heavy lifting there
      - rightbyte 2y ago
        Ye. But the soldiers will be home before Christmas surely. Edit: "/s". Referring to some unnamed WW1 quote.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        In any case I know people who are very familiar with the situation on the ground in Ukraine and it is simply not true that it's all artillery and shells and that drones are propaganda.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

14 points by aguaviva 2y ago

https://archive.ph/vJlcm https://archive.ph/vJlcm

In Russia-Ukraine war it works simply because neither side has a viable air force. If any of them did, theatre would have been isolated and the other side won't even be able to deploy heavy combat vehicles for inability to deliver fuel and ammunition for them. Drones impact everything but not aircraft, because they fly way higher and faster. Which means, unless U.S. does not have same drones as everyone else (if Ukraine has them, certainly U.S. can, too), their advantage only INCREASES, rather than decreases, because of drone introduction - because drones devaluates everything except air force, and USAF is stronger than all other non-US air forces in the world put together (that is, because USN air arm is a distant second).

elmerfud 2y ago
This is totally correct in that air power determines the domination. Even if air power can't necessarily route entrenched forces it prevents them from movement and can decimate supply lines. Not only do we have the USAF which is massive you leave out the other important thing which is the Navy's ability to deploy air power. A US carrier has more air power than most countries in the world.
belter 2y ago
> In Russia-Ukraine war it works simply because neither side has a viable air force. This is wrong. What happened is that the amount of anti-aircraft systems deployed prevents both sides from deploying a viable air force. No chance any F-16 or Migs can defeat systems like the Patriot or the Russian S500, that converge to targets at Mach 10. The only systems of the US Air Force with any chance of surviving on this type of environment, would be the most sophisticated stealth systems, that would not be deployed for regular operations. The future belongs to drone swarms working in tandem under the control of an AI....Sadly....
- omnee 2y ago
  Just to add to this point further. Russia has vastly more combat aircraft than Ukraine, but has only been able to achieve local air superiority in a few areas of the contact line. Ukraine, without having anywhere close to the number of anti-air systems of advanced modern armies have denied most of its airspace to the Russian Airforce, and have shot down many aircraft including the A-50. The key assumption is that stealth would enable the USAF to operate at will within or close to air defence zones, but this has not been tested against a near peer foe.
  - anovikov 2y ago
    It's not just stealth. USAF have perfected their SEAD/DEAD operations over decades. Normal non-stealthy aircraft provided with external assets for triangulating air defence radars can do the job easily and probably, without any losses at all. Any ground-based air defences today are useless and are just a sitting duck against any modern air force. It's just that the Russia doesn't have one. I know it - i passed training as a radar unit commander for Russian radiotechnical troops. We've been trained to understand that our mission us futile and we will never see anything of value on our radars - best we can do is to try to keep them from being destroyed (by employing false emitters, strategically switching off emission when threatened, and frequently moving) and out personnel from getting killed - by explaining them that HARM's shrapnel is small and command trailers have light anti-shrapnel armour and attack comes on a very short notice, so under attack the enlisted will be a lot safer sitting on their assigned places rather than running away. When you switch on emission, you don't get to see anything today because ECMs do a very good job. But everyone can see you. That's been 25 years ago but the equipment we've been trained to operate (it was brand new back then), is still the mainstay of the Russian radar troops, such as Nebo-SV. Slightly modernised versions are entering service now but they won't do a radical difference (modernisations are mostly about using fewer components from ex-USSR countries, because they are either politically hostile or producers gone out of business, not about specs improvement, anyway). In those years, Western anti-radar equipment and tactics have vastly improved though, so if it was one-sided then, it's most certainly so now.
- anovikov 2y ago
hindsightbias 2y ago
It goes both ways. If Air Superiority now means everything above 500' AGL, then your infantry is droneable. No heavy vehicles or fuel trucks needed. Seems like the Army and USAF are stuck between a rock and a fog layer. There's now another warlayer and the Key West Agreement doesn't cover it. Perhaps we need a US Drone Force, because the drones the USAF/USN are thinking about are $10M F-35 wingmen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

notinmykernel 2y ago

Is this the lobbyists for military industrial complex putting out propaganda in hopes of increasing the US military budget? I think so.

llamaimperative 2y ago
You can watch videos of what war looks like in Ukraine today. It is objectively true that war has changed dramatically. There being financial incentives to accounting for this change is a good thing.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  It still seems to be about artillery pounding shells at some place a bit away and trucks moving shells to said artillery. Infantry and armor being some statistical cost in shells. Most shells kinda wins eventually. Drones just made it even more unlikely that enemies see each other before they die of shrapnel wounds, mines, or what ever. Those videos are propaganda.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    "eventually" is doing some heavy lifting there
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Ye. But the soldiers will be home before Christmas surely. Edit: "/s". Referring to some unnamed WW1 quote.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        In any case I know people who are very familiar with the situation on the ground in Ukraine and it is simply not true that it's all artillery and shells and that drones are propaganda.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]