> basically useless if you dont already dominate the entire area
> too expensive to actually risk in combat
> be modern fighter jet aircraft
pic unrel
> basically useless if you dont already dominate the entire area. > too expensive to actually risk in combat
skill issue
Isn’t that , like, every modern warfare thing though?
>SOCOM
Requires external support and can only past a limited amount of time
>Tanks
Require infantry and support
>Infantry
Will fucking die without support
war sounds dangerous man we shouldn't do that
and expensive, too. if we didn't do war, we could afford to build so many low cost housing projects and increase our moron population even more
those things are expensive but they arent as cumbersome and expensive to make again if they get destroyed
true no cap
>Infantry
>Will fucking die without support
Afghanistan says hi
Yeah, Taliban died in pretty large numbers during that war and only started taking over areas after anyone who cared to fight left.
Now they're complaining about being wage slaves in offices.
>Russians embarrass themselves in the air combat
>Russians claim to anyone who will listen that modern aviation is useless
>everyone knows it's really Russians who are useless
>Mahan doctrine
>but for N-th generation fighters
air-fleet-in-being
maybe for economically challenged broke tinpot shitholes, or gay European countries that spent the better part of three decades deconstructing their militaries
Functional militaries should have enough fighter craft and standoff munitions to conduct large SEAD operations without massive casualties or to contest an attacking enemy's own air forces.
Losing a single F-35 or F-16 for a real military would not totally cripple their capabilities and would be well within the realm of expected and acceptable losses. Even if that were true, would apply in the same way it did for battleships in the first half of the 20th century.
Know how many fighter jets the US has between their Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp? It's over 2,800. I'm not even padding the numbers with trainers, aggressor aircraft, drones or attack craft like the A-10, I am talking active duty F series fighters. That cripple fight in Ukraine is definitely no way to judge the role or effectiveness of air power.
>That cripple fight in Ukraine is definitely no way to judge the role or effectiveness of air power
Cripple fight? One side was considered the third strongest military power in the world before the war.
SEAD is like talking about streetfighting tactics and you say well any real fighter could just put their hand on the opponent's forehead to hold them outside punching range, then pull their underwear up until it wraps over their head, then carry them to a locker and lock them in.
It's essentially a form of bullying that America and only America does, and it's one of the most challenging things we pull off, even against thirdies.
>One side was considered the third strongest military power in the world before the war.
>was
Honestly it probably still is, which is the saddest takeaway of this whole thing
Mi-24G and F14 have a child?
My Americaboner is rock-hard.
the strength of the western system is not its technology (although that is insuperable) nor its comically overwrought numerical advantage (ditto), it's the fact that they actually practice. they fly. they're not confined to their squadron ready room playing with models and drinking themselves blind and trying to coax static simulators built in 1991 to give them another chance. there were russian pilots who, statistically, went into combat in 2022 having flown less than 100 total hours in 2020 and 2021 combined, who hadn't fired a live munition in months or years, etc.
>air-fleet-in-being
I never considered this but holy shit you're right.
Nations with money can afford to lose planes. Broke shitholes like Russia and Ukraine can't.
Throughout the late 1800s to the early 1900s there was a constant shifting back and forth batgle between naval guns and armor. Guns would come out that were able to cut right through hulls of their period, then someone would come up with some new metallurgy that made the next generation of ships nearly impervious to them. But that same metallurgy would mean the next set of guns was able to eventually beat that armor and so forth. Aircraft and Surface Anti-air seem to be in a similar contest with one another, with various forms of SEAD and aircraft design (such as stealth) competing against the newer generations of SAMs like S400 and the like.
>$75 million for a F35
>$3 billion for a virginia class submarine
>$560 billion a year for US social security
Dumb thread OP. These things are in fact acceptable losses from a budgetary perspective.
By these things you mean social security right
> basically useless if you dont already dominate the entire area
> obviously USA is an exception to this because we dominate everywhere
OP here thanks for the bumps anyways
>we
>spain
>spain, france
The main guns with updated rounds are much more economical at the ranges available to it and volume of fire than comparable cruise missiles.
I thought you were talking about tanks
>basically useless if you don't already dominate the entire area
Unironically fits right in with US doctrine, both the planes and the ship. Also not correct since stand-off weapons and radiation missiles exist
>what is combined arms