5 ms·

So, the US relearns all the lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian war the hard way? Choppers proved very vulnerable already in 2022. History often repeats itself. In

So, the US relearns all the lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian war the hard way? Choppers proved very vulnerable already in 2022. History often repeats itself. In a similar way, Great Powers like France refused to study the lessons of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 because it was something that happened in barbarian lands far away from glorious Europe, so it was obviously irrelevant to them, right? And then the shock of industrial warfare almost shattered the French army in summer 1914.

tristanj 5mo ago
Absolutely incorrect. The attitude within the military industrial complex towards drone/UAVs has shifted enormously since the Russia/Ukraine conflict. However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade. There's not enough time to produce nor acquire this hardware. The US military is sitting on decades of older equipment. The Ukraine conflict started four years ago. Complaining that the US has not overhauled its inventory in just four years is unreasonable and unrealistic.
- sam_lowry_ 5mo ago
  Well then they have to hurry up or loose the war ;-)
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  "However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade." Interesting that the Ukrainians can design, develop, produce and deploy a new type of a drone in something like 6 weeks. Of course, they are in a life-or-death struggle and thus cannot afford a decade of paper wars with various lawyerly and MBA types who want to have their say. That said, the US cannot afford those either, but it is under the illusion that it still can. Structural ossification at its best, and the result is ... inability to beat an impoverished, long sanctioned Middle-Eastern authoritarian regime into submission.
  - tristanj 5mo ago
    Ukraine has been operating under general mobilization and martial law since 2022. Comparing Ukraine to the United States which is under no mobilization and civilian rule is not a fair comparison. If the United States was fully mobilized and restructured into a war economy like Ukraine, we would see rapid changes in military doctrine. On Iran, describing the US as "inable" to win is structurally incorrect. The US could always win the war whenever it wants to. Same with Russia vs Ukraine. Both the USA and Russia have ICBMs. Neither choose to use them, for political reasons.
    - inglor_cz 5mo ago
      The gap between weeks and years is big, though. Even in peacetime conditions, this process could be sped up if necessary. Indeed it might not make any sense at all to think in years and decades when it comes to such a quick-evolving industry. Whatever drone the DoD sets in stone now, will likely be obsolete by 2030. The Ukrainian drone industry isn't particularly expensive, BTW, and mostly grew up from private sector grassroots. Ukrainian military has had its own share of problems with ossified Soviet-era leadership. They were able to route around these, though. The US does not want to do this so far; probably too much money involved, and not enough risk to rock those boats (or yachts). On Iran, describing the US as "inable" to win is structurally incorrect. The US could always win the war whenever it wants to. Are you sure, with the shortages of equipment that take years to replenish? In what sense? I am not even sure if the US has enough naval capability to make a D-day-like landing in Iran right now. That requires specialized ships and training. The US could probably win the war if it went in fully: as you say, if it was fully mobilized and restructured into a war economy like Ukraine. But that is already quite a bad situation to be in. If a superpower needs to do this in order to fight someone like Iran, it is not really a (conventional) superpower anymore. The US could also wipe Iran using nuclear missiles, but the political ramifications of such a step would be catastrophic. So could Pakistan. Pakistan has enough nukes to wipe Iran off the Earth (not that they want to). But no one mistakes Pakistan for a superpower just because they have deliverable nukes.
      - tristanj 5mo ago
- Planktonne 5mo ago
  > However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade. There's not enough time to produce nor acquire this hardware. This has not seemed to be a problem for the countries using them; what makes the US so uniquely inefficient?
  - SirFatty 5mo ago
    Unlike Iran and Ukraine, the US military weapons are not manufactured in someone's garage or basement.
    - Planktonne 5mo ago
      But Iran and Ukraine are being very effective with their basement drones. If the US's manufacturing is fancier but not faster, meaning that it takes longer to get weaponry, that's not a good thing. It sounds like waste more than industry.
      - inglor_cz 5mo ago
        US-produced Hornets (ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt is the CEO) are very modern and are now destroying Russian logistics to Crimea. From what I have heard, they are iterating fast based on what the Ukrainian operators report back. This shows that the US private sector can well produce contemporary drones on a compressed time scale. It is the Pentagon which is not interested in overhauling settled vendor relations.
    - inglor_cz 5mo ago
      Quite a lot of Ukrainian-designed drones are nowadays produced in Western Europe in normal factories and sent to Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why Russia cannot simply destroy Ukrainian factories. Ukraine deploys several million drones a year, you can't get there by mere artisan workshops in garages. Sure, the designer teams back in Ukraine are lean, their members wear tracksuits and don't have a 50-head Human Resources to watch their behavior, nor three levels of managers wearing Philippe Patek above them. That is part of the efficiency and lower cost.
- adjejmxbdjdn 5mo ago
  Trump class warships and plans for more aircraft carriers suggest otherwise.
Kampfschnitzel 5mo ago
I am far from a US supporter, but just because a single Apache was downed, doesn't mean the US isnt adapting to the new kind of warfare we've seen from Ukraine. Also Iran =/= Ukraine. Furthermore, Choppers arent obsolete and if you got em, it makes sense go use them. Currently it's hard for any nation to meaningfully adapt, as the new tech develops far faster than any governement procurment process.
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  I haven't claimed that choppers are obsolete. I have said that they are vulnerable, and they indeed are. Both UA and RU still operate helicopters, but their survival envelope has tightened drastically and they won't even try to fly a chopper over a wide body of water anywhere near the enemy. To survive in a drone-infested war theatre, a chopper must fly really low and mask itself using terrain features as much as possible.
enoint 5mo ago
The French 75 was the best mobile gun in Europe. They entered the war expecting to be mobile and were the first to use poison gas. Compared to the Imperial Russian Navy? I don’t see it. The most dramatic lesson was that Japan prefers surprise attacks.
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  The most important lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian war weren't the naval ones. The siege of Port Arthur was an almost perfect pre-image of future trench warfare in WWI.

tristanj 5mo ago

Absolutely incorrect. The attitude within the military industrial complex towards drone/UAVs has shifted enormously since the Russia/Ukraine conflict. However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade. There's not enough time to produce nor acquire this hardware. The US military is sitting on decades of older equipment. The Ukraine conflict started four years ago. Complaining that the US has not overhauled its inventory in just four years is unreasonable and unrealistic.

sam_lowry_ 5mo ago
Well then they have to hurry up or loose the war ;-)
inglor_cz 5mo ago
"However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade." Interesting that the Ukrainians can design, develop, produce and deploy a new type of a drone in something like 6 weeks. Of course, they are in a life-or-death struggle and thus cannot afford a decade of paper wars with various lawyerly and MBA types who want to have their say. That said, the US cannot afford those either, but it is under the illusion that it still can. Structural ossification at its best, and the result is ... inability to beat an impoverished, long sanctioned Middle-Eastern authoritarian regime into submission.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  Ukraine has been operating under general mobilization and martial law since 2022. Comparing Ukraine to the United States which is under no mobilization and civilian rule is not a fair comparison. If the United States was fully mobilized and restructured into a war economy like Ukraine, we would see rapid changes in military doctrine. On Iran, describing the US as "inable" to win is structurally incorrect. The US could always win the war whenever it wants to. Same with Russia vs Ukraine. Both the USA and Russia have ICBMs. Neither choose to use them, for political reasons.
  - inglor_cz 5mo ago
    The gap between weeks and years is big, though. Even in peacetime conditions, this process could be sped up if necessary. Indeed it might not make any sense at all to think in years and decades when it comes to such a quick-evolving industry. Whatever drone the DoD sets in stone now, will likely be obsolete by 2030. The Ukrainian drone industry isn't particularly expensive, BTW, and mostly grew up from private sector grassroots. Ukrainian military has had its own share of problems with ossified Soviet-era leadership. They were able to route around these, though. The US does not want to do this so far; probably too much money involved, and not enough risk to rock those boats (or yachts). On Iran, describing the US as "inable" to win is structurally incorrect. The US could always win the war whenever it wants to. Are you sure, with the shortages of equipment that take years to replenish? In what sense? I am not even sure if the US has enough naval capability to make a D-day-like landing in Iran right now. That requires specialized ships and training. The US could probably win the war if it went in fully: as you say, if it was fully mobilized and restructured into a war economy like Ukraine. But that is already quite a bad situation to be in. If a superpower needs to do this in order to fight someone like Iran, it is not really a (conventional) superpower anymore. The US could also wipe Iran using nuclear missiles, but the political ramifications of such a step would be catastrophic. So could Pakistan. Pakistan has enough nukes to wipe Iran off the Earth (not that they want to). But no one mistakes Pakistan for a superpower just because they have deliverable nukes.
    - tristanj 5mo ago
Planktonne 5mo ago
> However, procurement times on new equipment is on the order of several years to nearly a decade. There's not enough time to produce nor acquire this hardware. This has not seemed to be a problem for the countries using them; what makes the US so uniquely inefficient?
- SirFatty 5mo ago
  Unlike Iran and Ukraine, the US military weapons are not manufactured in someone's garage or basement.
  - Planktonne 5mo ago
    But Iran and Ukraine are being very effective with their basement drones. If the US's manufacturing is fancier but not faster, meaning that it takes longer to get weaponry, that's not a good thing. It sounds like waste more than industry.
    - inglor_cz 5mo ago
      US-produced Hornets (ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt is the CEO) are very modern and are now destroying Russian logistics to Crimea. From what I have heard, they are iterating fast based on what the Ukrainian operators report back. This shows that the US private sector can well produce contemporary drones on a compressed time scale. It is the Pentagon which is not interested in overhauling settled vendor relations.
  - inglor_cz 5mo ago
    Quite a lot of Ukrainian-designed drones are nowadays produced in Western Europe in normal factories and sent to Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why Russia cannot simply destroy Ukrainian factories. Ukraine deploys several million drones a year, you can't get there by mere artisan workshops in garages. Sure, the designer teams back in Ukraine are lean, their members wear tracksuits and don't have a 50-head Human Resources to watch their behavior, nor three levels of managers wearing Philippe Patek above them. That is part of the efficiency and lower cost.
adjejmxbdjdn 5mo ago
Trump class warships and plans for more aircraft carriers suggest otherwise.

Kampfschnitzel 5mo ago

I am far from a US supporter, but just because a single Apache was downed, doesn't mean the US isnt adapting to the new kind of warfare we've seen from Ukraine. Also Iran =/= Ukraine. Furthermore, Choppers arent obsolete and if you got em, it makes sense go use them. Currently it's hard for any nation to meaningfully adapt, as the new tech develops far faster than any governement procurment process.

inglor_cz 5mo ago
I haven't claimed that choppers are obsolete. I have said that they are vulnerable, and they indeed are. Both UA and RU still operate helicopters, but their survival envelope has tightened drastically and they won't even try to fly a chopper over a wide body of water anywhere near the enemy. To survive in a drone-infested war theatre, a chopper must fly really low and mask itself using terrain features as much as possible.

enoint 5mo ago

The French 75 was the best mobile gun in Europe. They entered the war expecting to be mobile and were the first to use poison gas. Compared to the Imperial Russian Navy? I don’t see it. The most dramatic lesson was that Japan prefers surprise attacks.

inglor_cz 5mo ago
The most important lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian war weren't the naval ones. The siege of Port Arthur was an almost perfect pre-image of future trench warfare in WWI.