It’s cope. It means nothing. Speculating on the effectiveness of warfighting technology before a peer engagement is just flag-waving. A stealthed craft deploying guided munitions at half a mile is a lot less likely to be countered when compared to a medium-range ballistic missile from 30mi out, for example, despite the risk of a manned craft behind enemy territory. On a cost analysis, we can’t speculate on profitability until we know just how many of those munitions will be screened during an engagement. You fire 100 $5k rockets vs. 2 $250k cruise missile, the benefit only comes from the amount of bang that reaches the target.
Short of a US/EU/Russia/China war, there is no real peer-peer conflict; Ukraine and even Israel are proxy wars. However, holding the capability to win a peer-peer conflict is expensive and requires significant weapons platforms - warships, aircraft - and logistic chains. These however are expensive overkill in the majority of conflict. A US carrier group would be able to dislodge a piracy operation using missiles that are orders of magnitude more expensive than their targets, with a fleet whos individual vessels have more manpower and fuel use that the whole fleet they destroy. Combine this with falling defense spending as priorities shift, and you start to understand the issues.
Don’t quote me on this, I think a single Iron dome rocket costs as much as a teachers average yearly salary, and Israel would frequently have to fire hundreds to block an attack. An Arlegh Burke (spelling) destroyer costs as much as a brand new school and its maintenance for the first 5 years, and I’m pretty sure the US has hundreds.
It’s hard for me to know what parts are true/matter. I’m not super familiar with any military tactics/strategy, so it seemed like an interesting read. However, the moment they consider anything going on in Ukraine as a win for Russia takes me out of the narrative. I couldn’t tell you what way that conflict is going, but there is no way Russia wanted a prolonged engagement - no matter how you look at it Russia will not “win” that war.
If support stays for Ukraine they have it. Russia has shown its ineffective armed forces and while it can continue to be a significant opposition their economy can’t hold.
Lol what did I just read
It’s cope. It means nothing. Speculating on the effectiveness of warfighting technology before a peer engagement is just flag-waving. A stealthed craft deploying guided munitions at half a mile is a lot less likely to be countered when compared to a medium-range ballistic missile from 30mi out, for example, despite the risk of a manned craft behind enemy territory. On a cost analysis, we can’t speculate on profitability until we know just how many of those munitions will be screened during an engagement. You fire 100 $5k rockets vs. 2 $250k cruise missile, the benefit only comes from the amount of bang that reaches the target.
Id call it a cope with a few grains of truth.
Short of a US/EU/Russia/China war, there is no real peer-peer conflict; Ukraine and even Israel are proxy wars. However, holding the capability to win a peer-peer conflict is expensive and requires significant weapons platforms - warships, aircraft - and logistic chains. These however are expensive overkill in the majority of conflict. A US carrier group would be able to dislodge a piracy operation using missiles that are orders of magnitude more expensive than their targets, with a fleet whos individual vessels have more manpower and fuel use that the whole fleet they destroy. Combine this with falling defense spending as priorities shift, and you start to understand the issues.
Don’t quote me on this, I think a single Iron dome rocket costs as much as a teachers average yearly salary, and Israel would frequently have to fire hundreds to block an attack. An Arlegh Burke (spelling) destroyer costs as much as a brand new school and its maintenance for the first 5 years, and I’m pretty sure the US has hundreds.
It’s hard for me to know what parts are true/matter. I’m not super familiar with any military tactics/strategy, so it seemed like an interesting read. However, the moment they consider anything going on in Ukraine as a win for Russia takes me out of the narrative. I couldn’t tell you what way that conflict is going, but there is no way Russia wanted a prolonged engagement - no matter how you look at it Russia will not “win” that war.
If support stays for Ukraine they have it. Russia has shown its ineffective armed forces and while it can continue to be a significant opposition their economy can’t hold.
$40k-$50k. That is US funded Israeli teacher salary. Not a US one, right?