3 ms·

> That's what the US tried to do. Yes but with the caveat that they wanted the lowest risk to US service members during the bombing. This means using up the fi

> That's what the US tried to do. Yes but with the caveat that they wanted the lowest risk to US service members during the bombing. This means using up the fire and forget stuff rather than the guided munitions attached to planes. They have good air superiority, but poor logistical options to do that. The traditional way to do this is to park two carrier groups within 500 miles of the target and convey tonnes of cheap munitions to the targets (as in iraq, Libya & kosovo) the problem for the US is that it means parking a carrier within drone range. You'd then establish a land base and move forward. Again all of the logistics of doing that are vulnerable to drone. So this is the route they chose. Until the US have something to counter drones cheaply, then they'll get stuck like this.

_heimdall 2mo ago
I would love to know the honest opinions of our top brass. They had to know sitting out of (most) drone range and leaning almost entirely on long range surface-to-surfsce missiles wouldn't even come close to clearing the way for more standard bombing runs. They would have known going into this war the plan was fundamentally flawed before we even committed to firing a single munition.
nixon_why69 2mo ago
An undersold embarrassment of this fiasco is the Marine Corps has 10 (ten!) amphibious assault carriers that are more capable than most nations' flagships and we didn't see one of them even talked about. Why have we been floating these things for decades?
- _heimdall 2mo ago
  How would you propose we use them here? It seemed for a while like our military was at least prepping for a land invasion. Maybe they could have been part of the landing but I'm sure as hell glad they didn't follow through with an invasion. The geography, supply line issues, and drone warfare would have been an absolute nightmare.
  - nixon_why69 2mo ago
    I don't think they could have been productively used, I'm more saying that they have always been a waste of money.
    - _heimdall 2mo ago
      Ah got it. It sure does seem like that's where we're ending up. Whether they would have been useful a couple decades ago may be up for debate, but I wouldn't want to be landing on one of those with drones in the air.
- lenkite 2mo ago
  > An undersold embarrassment of this fiasco is the Marine Corps has 10 (ten!) amphibious assault carriers that are more capable than most nations' flagships These Marine amphibious assault carriers are highly vulnerable to swarm tactics by fast Iranian assault boats. Iran has a few thousand of them which can be deployed fast. You need a full strike group to support the assault. And that means those ships are in range of Iranian mass-drone strikes and missiles. And Iran has a lot of hidden missile cities that they are yet to reveal. There is no way to achieve territorial supremacy without tens of thousands of casualties. It will make Vietnam look like a papercut.

_heimdall 2mo ago

I would love to know the honest opinions of our top brass. They had to know sitting out of (most) drone range and leaning almost entirely on long range surface-to-surfsce missiles wouldn't even come close to clearing the way for more standard bombing runs. They would have known going into this war the plan was fundamentally flawed before we even committed to firing a single munition.

nixon_why69 2mo ago

An undersold embarrassment of this fiasco is the Marine Corps has 10 (ten!) amphibious assault carriers that are more capable than most nations' flagships and we didn't see one of them even talked about. Why have we been floating these things for decades?

_heimdall 2mo ago
How would you propose we use them here? It seemed for a while like our military was at least prepping for a land invasion. Maybe they could have been part of the landing but I'm sure as hell glad they didn't follow through with an invasion. The geography, supply line issues, and drone warfare would have been an absolute nightmare.
- nixon_why69 2mo ago
  I don't think they could have been productively used, I'm more saying that they have always been a waste of money.
  - _heimdall 2mo ago
    Ah got it. It sure does seem like that's where we're ending up. Whether they would have been useful a couple decades ago may be up for debate, but I wouldn't want to be landing on one of those with drones in the air.
lenkite 2mo ago
> An undersold embarrassment of this fiasco is the Marine Corps has 10 (ten!) amphibious assault carriers that are more capable than most nations' flagships These Marine amphibious assault carriers are highly vulnerable to swarm tactics by fast Iranian assault boats. Iran has a few thousand of them which can be deployed fast. You need a full strike group to support the assault. And that means those ships are in range of Iranian mass-drone strikes and missiles. And Iran has a lot of hidden missile cities that they are yet to reveal. There is no way to achieve territorial supremacy without tens of thousands of casualties. It will make Vietnam look like a papercut.