Now that Russia has responded in a measured but entirely predictable way to the stupid Kerch bridge attempt to provoke an unmeasured reaction from Russia, everyone is talking air defense. The Russian campaign was almost certainly in the planning for months and was about to happen anyway. What does it tell you that, with Russia having established air superiority long ago, nothing was done about air defense? Zhou says we’re now going to be providing Ukraine with air defense—
America mostly has no air defense, because mostly it needs none. American troops haven't had to seriously worry about being bombed by a hostile air force within the lifetime of anyone now wearing the uniform. Mostly the Air Force takes care of the matter by owning the skies.
On the other hand, we haven't fought a peer competitor within the lifetime of anyone now wearing uniform either.
But what we're really talking about here is missile defense. Rather than get into what would be endless arguments about the likely performance of this or that system vs that other system, let me do the math. Interceptors by and large cost more than the missiles they intercept. You also may need more than one interceptor to intercept a missile since a given interceptor has a kill probability of less than 100%.
So to stop the wave of missiles Russia fired in its revenge attacks would have required more missiles than Russia fired. I do not know the state of Russia's remaining missile inventory, but I doubt that we have a number of interceptors greater than Russia's offensive missile forces. Stopping that recent wave might have used up a year's production of Patriots. (I found a reference on Global Security to a contract in which we got slightly over a hundred Patriots in one year)
LMAO. While our vaunted air defense systems are mediocre, at best, against SCUDs and other primitive technologies, they are utterly useless against Russia’s hypersonic missiles.
When I was in the US Army, we were constantly told to adapt, improvise and overcome, because the battlefield is never static, it is constantly changing and morphing. Apparently the Russians realize this , but somehow the geniuses in the Pentagon have either forgotten it, choose to ignore it, or just plain don’t think that is as important as choosing the correct pronouns or reducing physical standards so those less qualified can make the cut. Something has got to change damn soon, before it gets to the place that the best we can muster will
be a station wagon full of guys hurling Molotov cocktails and firing 22 long rifles from Uncle Ed’s possum huntin gun.
BTW, did I miss the news story from 2015 about the NATO drone found near Nordstrom?
The Russians are in fact waging an existential battle, NATO's involvement is the exact opposite, insofar as the member nations futures are concerned. The continued existence of NATO in the post cold war era is the stupidest, and most counterproductive threat to peace since I don't know when. NATO, The EU, The UN are ruinous relics, tools of globalists, ultimately destructive of sovereign nations.
The $Billions$ blown on worthless weapons systems such as the failed F-35 are icing on a very unappealing cake.
A few reality based notes about air defense.
America mostly has no air defense, because mostly it needs none. American troops haven't had to seriously worry about being bombed by a hostile air force within the lifetime of anyone now wearing the uniform. Mostly the Air Force takes care of the matter by owning the skies.
On the other hand, we haven't fought a peer competitor within the lifetime of anyone now wearing uniform either.
But what we're really talking about here is missile defense. Rather than get into what would be endless arguments about the likely performance of this or that system vs that other system, let me do the math. Interceptors by and large cost more than the missiles they intercept. You also may need more than one interceptor to intercept a missile since a given interceptor has a kill probability of less than 100%.
So to stop the wave of missiles Russia fired in its revenge attacks would have required more missiles than Russia fired. I do not know the state of Russia's remaining missile inventory, but I doubt that we have a number of interceptors greater than Russia's offensive missile forces. Stopping that recent wave might have used up a year's production of Patriots. (I found a reference on Global Security to a contract in which we got slightly over a hundred Patriots in one year)
LMAO. While our vaunted air defense systems are mediocre, at best, against SCUDs and other primitive technologies, they are utterly useless against Russia’s hypersonic missiles.
When do we get confirmation the trillions in taxpayer dollars taken from us to fund our own defense systems protect us as well as they have Ukraine?
Oh...wait...
When I was in the US Army, we were constantly told to adapt, improvise and overcome, because the battlefield is never static, it is constantly changing and morphing. Apparently the Russians realize this , but somehow the geniuses in the Pentagon have either forgotten it, choose to ignore it, or just plain don’t think that is as important as choosing the correct pronouns or reducing physical standards so those less qualified can make the cut. Something has got to change damn soon, before it gets to the place that the best we can muster will
be a station wagon full of guys hurling Molotov cocktails and firing 22 long rifles from Uncle Ed’s possum huntin gun.
BTW, did I miss the news story from 2015 about the NATO drone found near Nordstrom?
The Russians are in fact waging an existential battle, NATO's involvement is the exact opposite, insofar as the member nations futures are concerned. The continued existence of NATO in the post cold war era is the stupidest, and most counterproductive threat to peace since I don't know when. NATO, The EU, The UN are ruinous relics, tools of globalists, ultimately destructive of sovereign nations.
The $Billions$ blown on worthless weapons systems such as the failed F-35 are icing on a very unappealing cake.