> basically useless if you dont already dominate the entire area. > too expensive to actually risk in combat

> basically useless if you dont already dominate the entire area
> too expensive to actually risk in combat
> be modern fighter jet aircraft
pic unrel

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    skill issue

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 fricking die without support

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      war sounds dangerous man we shouldn't do that

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        and expensive, too. if we didn't do war, we could afford to build so many low cost housing projects and increase our Black person population even more

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      those things are expensive but they arent as cumbersome and expensive to make again if they get destroyed

      war sounds dangerous man we shouldn't do that

      true no cap

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Infantry
      >Will fricking die without support
      Afghanistan says hi

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Mahan doctrine
    >but for N-th generation fighters

    air-fleet-in-being

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      maybe for economically challenged broke tinpot shitholes, or homosexual 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >One side was considered the third strongest military power in the world before the war.
            >was

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Honestly it probably still is, which is the saddest takeaway of this whole thing

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Mi-24G and F14 have a child?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          My Americaboner is rock-hard.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >air-fleet-in-being
      I never considered this but holy shit you're right.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nations with money can afford to lose planes. Broke shitholes like Russia and Ukraine can't.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >$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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      By these things you mean social security right

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > 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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >we

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >spain

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >spain, france

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The main guns with updated rounds are much more economical at the ranges available to it and volume of fire than comparable cruise missiles.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I thought you were talking about tanks

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >what is combined arms

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *