- cross-posted to:
- pravda@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- pravda@rss.ponder.cat
You must log in or register to comment.
Asymmetric warfare has been a game changer. It’s all about “mass” on target. It’s more effective (and possible) to build and fire a 100 rockets that cost a 1000 dollars to make. Than fire a single 100.000 dollar one.
Back in 2002 the US navy found out that just overwhelming defences with a large amount of projectiles could sink an aircraft carrier. In this case a in a wargame which led to some controversy after they covered it up.
It’s apparently a little more controversial than that. There’s a whole community of “truthers” that are committed to debunking the idea that Van Riper’s tactics would have worked in the real world and accuse him of gaming the simulation and ruining the productiveness of this massive exercise by, more or less, using exploits. On the other hand, there are some other military people who say more or less that his job wasn’t to make an objectively productive exercise, it was to win, and at that he excelled and fair’s fair. The truth is probably a mixture of both, innovative tactics alongside semi-exploits that aren’t applicable to the real world.
Curious to know how the exploits would not be applicable in real world.
Some of them would, some would not.
Such defeat can be attributed to various shortfall in simulation capabilities and design that significantly hindered Blue Force fighting and command capabilities. Examples include: a time lag in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information being forwarded to the Blueforce by the simulation master, various glitches that limited Blue ships point-defense capabilities and error in the simulation which placed ships unrealistically close to Red assets.
His real job was to find exploits so that we could learn and mitigate them. If we learned and take steps to prevent what he did from working in the real world he did his job. If we didn’t take steps (at least gain confidence that this isn’t real world possible) then he failed.
Sounds like Enders Game.
Ah yes, the one where a carrier group was attacked by
IranianOPFOR ground effect fighters while transiting the Straight of Hormuz resulting in a loss of the carrier and support ships.The $100K rocket was never about warfare or strategy. It was just plain grift. Pork barrel politics all the way.
Ukraine is innovating the hell out of warfare because they’re desperate. They have no other choice: find ways to defeat the Russians as cheaply and effectively as possible or be conquered. I am so proud and impressed of their courage and ingenuity in the face of overwhelming odds.
Just a little bit of clarification here
The aircraft had just landed when the drone hit it, this wasn’t an air to air kind of situation
I was really hoping it was lol
Yeah that “shot down” headline is inaccurate if it was on the ground already.
Actually, that begs a pedantic question. When would an aircraft be “shot down” vs …whatever one would call destroyed on the ground. Is it shot down if the pilot is in the chair? If it’s moving on the tarmac? While taking off but before rotation? If it’s landing and thrust reversers have been deployed? Before reversers are deployed? During flair? On final approach?
I am unsure as to why this was reported as being “shot down” there have been many previous reports of Russian aircraft being destroyed on the ground and they weren’t referred to as being “shot down”
But also fairly recently a few Russian helicopters were destroyed on the ground and they were also referred to as being “shot down”
I honestly do not know Ukrainian well enough to know if it is just a simple translation issue, that seems to happen fairly often
Valid point, but a win is a win! :)
Hell yeah it is, that was a BIG score!
Thanks, that put a smile on my face this morning! A cheap assed drone wiping out a hundred million dollar plane has got to sting a little.
