Jump to content

US Anti Aircraft defences


Recommended Posts

I think we are also missing the airforce' concentration in the development of stand-off munitions such as Jasm as well as the general accuracy of JDaMS dropped from high altitude. CAS no longer needs to be from an aircraft low over the battlefield. It can be from a B-1 at 50,000 feet or an F-35 10 miles behind the battle launching a GPS guided standoff missile

That is primarily the reason that the US has not really made an effort to keep up with mobile AAA...air superiority, stealth and standoff munitions (along with high altitude JDAMS) mean that many aircraft won't need to be in range

Of course, helos are different but with new upgrades to hellfire models and info sharing, the AH-64 doesn't have to even be able to see the target

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m not from the US nor Russia, so I don't have a "patriotic horse" in this race, but more than the lack of SPAA I would be worry for the small number of air superiority dedicated fighters (F-22s)

 

How many can be actually deployed to a foreign theater without degrading continental defenses? 20? 30? maybe 50?

 

The USAF alone still has over 1400 fighters dude. The Navy and Marine Corps bring another 500+. THhs number doesn't include the ANG either, so we're good on continental defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, attacking the United States with an intent of the inflicting any sort of significant damage requires a major operation regardless of who's doing it: logistics fuel etc. not just a question of deciding tomorrow you're going to bomb the US. so I don't why think continental defense is an issue besides that's handled by the National Guard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That attack air would have to slip through in terms of sensors:

 

PATRIOT

E-3 Sentry AWACS

Ground based early warning radars

Fighter based sensor systems 

Other NATO radar platforms (which are largely designed to share a common operating picture with US assets)

 

From those sensors, any number of fixed wing assets can be massed on the attacking element.  If the initial waves are ineffective, more planes can be vectored to target (unlike SAMs) until the enemy aviation is no longer mission capable.  

 

Then if they're bopping above the horizon Patriot might just zot them anyway.  

 

If the enemy attack dodges all those sensors, all those planes who's only job is to spot and destroy enemy CAS or strike assets, the ability of a M6 Linebacker to save the day was zero.  Four stingers will not stop the sort of onslaught that would have to exist to bypass that sort of layered defense, and the howling hoard of thousands of PAK-FAs that do not exist would simply pop the M6 like a zit before flying to strafe the tank company to pieces with dual AK-47s fired out the window because you are describing a situation that is so craycray I find it worthwhile to talk about it using that word.

 

The Linebacker was like issuing a shotgun to a tank crew to fend off enemy infantry boarding the tank.  If the infantry slipped through everything else, and is now standing on my turret, that shotgun would be mighty helpful.  But it would only be helpful after EVERYTHING ELSE HAD FAILED SO CATASTROPHICALLY AS TO BOGGLE THE MIND (the rifles are for if we have to leave the tank, not some sort of alamo defense).

 

The M6 was canned after this process:

 

1. Army cancels ADATS

2. Someone decides we still need SHORAD

3. More or less, the M6 is made from nearly off the shelf parts

4. M6 more or less doesn't really do much.  In large exercises, if red air closes with blue forces the M6 is just not enough to matter.  Deployed, what enemy air existed was something the M6 couldn't help with

5. M6 and ADA soldiers serve as adhoc infantry.

6. M6 vehicles are refurbed to replace higher mileage M2/M3 platforms.  

 

It wasn't super useful, even in its heyday.  

 

But wouldn't a helicopter be able to slip by those sensors? And even if it doesn't slip by the sensors, a sensor won't kill the helicopter, right? You still need a weapon to kill it.

Edited by BlackAlpha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wars, always hard to predict the future and what will happen. but a enemy that is preparing for battle is always looking for the weaknesses of their enemy to use to their own advantage.

 

I think of pearl harbor - America was cocky with the power that they held and did not think the enemy could challenge their power in the sea.

 

Well History shows how that worked out and the cost it involved.

 

I for one think we Americans are again cocky and think we have a Military that is unchallengable from without, but if we were to look at it more closely. There is many signs of weakness .  ( Our present strength comes from the Techno advantages we have, more than anything else..)

 

Now the question is, if a enemy was planning and preparing somehow to take that away in some type of high tech warfare that had not been planned on. Would we really be all that strong. 

 

And if you have any real knowledge of how this high tech stuff is being made, it is sad to say it is not within the control of our country. Much is being done from other Nato countries also.

 

And if one thing is for sure, with how fast things can change in our days and times. I can see any country for the right price get the latest new gismo. So is it far fetched to think that a enemy  could get the jump on the next new technology that could swing the advantage to them. Not in my mind.

 

There is plenty of greed and hate in the world still, much of it pointed at America. I for one just think we rely too heavy on our tecno advantage and we are cutting corners and items and size of our forces and that we are becoming more and more dependent on outside sources for creating our war machine.

 

Only the future will tell if our present decisions will be costly in that point of time.

 

I have real knowledge of how tech stuff is made and I'm telling that the US is better than good in this department, I would say the level of self sufficiency in the US is higher than in any other nation.

 

Quantity over quality does not make any sense for the US military, wages are much too high. The US has far and away the largest R&D budget in the world and the greatest ability to produce new tech. The US should (and does) focus on have the best training and cutting edge equipment to maximize it's advantages.

 

 

But wouldn't a helicopter be able to slip by those sensors? And even if it doesn't slip by the sensors, a sensor won't kill the helicopter, right? You still need a weapon to kill it.

 

 

Probably would't be able to slip by, some of those sensors are good at detecting low flying targets and there are a lot of them. 

Edited by nsKb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't a helicopter be able to slip by those sensors? And even if it doesn't slip by the sensors, a sensor won't kill the helicopter, right? You still need a weapon to kill it.

 

Not all of them, no. If they were capable of slipping past all the sensors, then we wouldn't be able to put a weapon on them anyway, so who cares if you have air defense on the ground or in the air; it would be useless anyway. But IRL, the idea is that aircraft can carry the weapons necessary, in meaningful amounts, wherever they are needed, without having to "overstack" every battalion with enough short-range air defense to knock down a realistically sized helo force sent to interdict or attrite them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ponder this: where are the mongols now?

 

What defeated the mongols wasn't their warfighting ability, or in my illustration, identifying a tool they either did not require or desire to use, but a whole host of other issues outside the example.  If the Mongols had been slaughtered on the open plains for lack of fortifications you'd have a point though!

 

 

 

So, are jets effective at taking out helicopters, and more specifically, helicopters armed with air to air missiles?

 

Your mileage varies.  In training actually the A-10 has proven the grim reaper of all things rotary (to include rotary wing assets armed with notional missiles) because of it's ability to go slow and good observation abilities.

 

In terms of sensors, AWACS from my understanding has a radar filter installed so it doesn't display trains and cars in motion.  It's a powerful array, and I believe JSTARs can also pick up rotary pretty well.

 

The big "can't kill helicopters with jets!" issue has a lot more to do with fighter sensors being not especially well adapted to looking for things somewhat stationary 10-15 meters off the ground.  The counter to that is that if something is stuck hiding 10-15 meters off the ground, it's not doing its mission (unless its mission is to hide in that spot).  Once you require the helicopter to move, or god forbid employ weapons, its life expectancy shortens dramatically given the inability to evade once detected (think of it like, it might be hard for you to find an ant in your living room, but once you've spotted it, it's pretty much doomed).  Further when dealing with bigger sensor support like AWACS and JSTARs you don't have to find the helicopter yourself, someone else tells you about where to look for it, and then it's not nearly as difficult to ruin faces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are jets effective at taking out helicopters, and more specifically, helicopters armed with air to air missiles?

 

The Serbs managed a few sorties against the Albanians during Allied Force and the occasional transport helo milk-run to shoot down a Predator. Other than that, not many seem to want to test aircraft on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the ROE. So, get the politicians and lawyers out of it (or, better yet, put them INTO it), and then you'd see why no one builds air superiority helicopters. A few squirters may get out, short flights, good terrain, but they'd be the lucky ones. If there is any type of counter-air orbit flying, anything coming up would die.

 

US sensor tech is very, very good. The networking is just as good. The benefit of the new generation F22/F35 is supercruise. They define the air to air engagement criteria. When, where, how, and how often. The limiting factor would be the number of missiles carried. But that's why multiple flights are stacked and racked ready to go.

 

Again, ROE is key. The limit is not technology, it's political will.

Edited by c3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That attack air would have to slip through in terms of sensors:

 

PATRIOT

E-3 Sentry AWACS

Ground based early warning radars

Fighter based sensor systems 

Other NATO radar platforms (which are largely designed to share a common operating picture with US assets)

 

From those sensors, any number of fixed wing assets can be massed on the attacking element.  If the initial waves are ineffective, more planes can be vectored to target (unlike SAMs) until the enemy aviation is no longer mission capable.  

 

Then if they're bopping above the horizon Patriot might just zot them anyway.  

 

If the enemy attack dodges all those sensors, all those planes who's only job is to spot and destroy enemy CAS or strike assets, the ability of a M6 Linebacker to save the day was zero.  Four stingers will not stop the sort of onslaught that would have to exist to bypass that sort of layered defense, and the howling hoard of thousands of PAK-FAs that do not exist would simply pop the M6 like a zit before flying to strafe the tank company to pieces with dual AK-47s fired out the window because you are describing a situation that is so craycray I find it worthwhile to talk about it using that word.

 

The Linebacker was like issuing a shotgun to a tank crew to fend off enemy infantry boarding the tank.  If the infantry slipped through everything else, and is now standing on my turret, that shotgun would be mighty helpful.  But it would only be helpful after EVERYTHING ELSE HAD FAILED SO CATASTROPHICALLY AS TO BOGGLE THE MIND (the rifles are for if we have to leave the tank, not some sort of alamo defense).

 

The M6 was canned after this process:

 

1. Army cancels ADATS

2. Someone decides we still need SHORAD

3. More or less, the M6 is made from nearly off the shelf parts

4. M6 more or less doesn't really do much.  In large exercises, if red air closes with blue forces the M6 is just not enough to matter.  Deployed, what enemy air existed was something the M6 couldn't help with

5. M6 and ADA soldiers serve as adhoc infantry.

6. M6 vehicles are refurbed to replace higher mileage M2/M3 platforms.  

 

It wasn't super useful, even in its heyday.  

 

The point is though that the enemy we are talking about fighting here is not the Iraqis. It isn't Islamic State. It isn't the Serbs. It isn;t ever Iran or North Korea. It is Russa - ome of the USA's Great Power rivals. This is the Premier League we are dealing wit. Not the Second Divisio and it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate them As Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did.

 

The Russian airforce is not equipped with the cast offs thhe Iraqis had. Their aircraft and pilots are probably pretty good. Sure, so are those of the US. But yiu are assuming that the air strike won't geet through. The Russians know how important your AWACS is. They are going to go after them in the air war. Russian fighters will be duelling your aircraft in the skies over Ukraine. It is going to be like that for at least the first couple of weeks. And Russian auir strikes are going to get through. It would be arrogant and stupid to assume they would not. Even Patriot won't get everything.

 

That's why you need a tactical air defence. You need it to keep up with the tanks and you need it to be able to survive in modern armoured combat.

 

It is like an insurance policy. Chances are that house fire you took out the policy against won't happen. You are a sensible guy and take lots of precautions. But if it does happen and you are not insured it is catastrophic. Likewise if that Russian air strike gets through your barely protected tank company that you did so much work training and mintaining is going to get gutted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is though that the enemy we are talking about fighting here is not the Iraqis. It isn't Islamic State. It isn't the Serbs. It isn;t ever Iran or North Korea. It is Russa - ome of the USA's Great Power rivals. This is the Premier League we are dealing wit. Not the Second Divisio and it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate them As Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did.

In military terms, the US has no Great Power rivals, and in aviation terms everyone else is Second Division, if only because the USAF is both large and technically advanced enough to be able to throw up several teams with better coaches (AWACS) than any other nation. And is the Russian SotA in air superiority really comparable with US tech, or present in sufficiently overwhelming numbers to compensate for deficiencies? I don't think the last can possibly be true, given that the USA alone has nearly 3 times the interceptor air frames that the Russians do.

 

The Russians know how important your AWACS is. They are going to go after them in the air war.

Playing right into American strengths? Over American ADS? Not going to be very successful. Sabotage and spec ops have a better chance of keeping the eyes out of the sky. The Russians built their ground AAA so they don't have to take out the American airforce to have some protection against TacAir.

Russian fighters will be duelling your aircraft in the skies over Ukraine.

At poor odds, and at an information and C3 disadvantage as well as any disadvantage in individual airframe/missileframe capabilities.

It is going to be like that for at least the first couple of weeks.

Only if the Russians drag it out by refusing to come out to play very often, and if they're not out protecting the GA buses, the GA buses get shot down. With the simple numerical advantages the Americans have, they can trade 1-for-1 in all classes, and still have more left than the Russians started with and they probably will do better than that, given the technical advantages as well, and proper leverage of the numerical.

And Russian auir strikes are going to get through. It would be arrogant and stupid to assume they would not.

It would be arrogant and stupid to believe they weren't going to if the numbers and capabilities were as near-par as you seem to think. They're not. So it's a sober assessment and long term policy. Perhaps the Russians have something up their sleeve that will obviate the air superiority advantage, at which point the brass got blindsided and the PBI will pay the butcher's bill. The assumption is that few enough strikes will get through that expending time and treasure on local ADS is a waste.

Even Patriot won't get everything.

It's not meant to. You know what layered defense means.

 

It is like an insurance policy. Chances are that house fire you took out the policy against won't happen. You are a sensible guy and take lots of precautions. But if it does happen and you are not insured it is catastrophic. Likewise if that Russian air strike gets through your barely protected tank company that you did so much work training and mintaining is going to get gutted.

Insurance, all of it, is a bet with the insurance company that you're going to lose. A bet you hope you never win. It isn't always a bad thing, but you do have to understand the risks you're taking and the consequences of those risks materialising. Losing the odd vehicle to the occasional leaker is nothing to the military like your house burning down is to you. It is to the individual troopers affected, sure, but they're not the ones making the bet. If you want to improve your flawed analogy, the concerned party is the local council and the insurance money aggregated from all the town's households has been spent on a better fire department, neighbourhood-wide fire detection systems, including subsidies for home systems tied into FireNet and an anti-arson team in the PD. And each house has a fire extinguisher/something to shoot arsonists with. Tactical air defense systems are not insurance, they are additional precautions. They don't compensate you for losses, they help prevent that loss occurring in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russians are B team.  

 

The mental image I find more useful for this is trench warfare.  With Russian, and then the US/Ukrainian assets, the airspace on either side of the frontline is going to be supremely dangerous.  The US and Russians will at the start of the campaign be largely able to defend their airspace, but will have difficulty penetrating each other's air space.  The ability for aviation to mass rapidly, both for defense, and offense, and the ability for sensors to detect offensives at range all make again, some sort of truly contested situation where both sides are getting in a fair number of strikes to be very unlikely.   The reality is both Russian and USAF forces will be almost entirely committed to either making the skies safe enough for operation, or denying skies to same.  Until the defenses on one side are sufficiently reduced it's going to be difficult to suicidal to operate especially with the Russian generation of strike fighters.  

 

So again, contested doesn't mean the sky is shared, it means its a battlezone where it's dangerous to everyone.  And reasonably speaking given the lethality of fighting, the life expectancy of the Russian airforce as a solvent threat is pretty short.  Achieving air superiority/dominance over the Russian side of the fence will take a while, but that's because SEAD is tricky, and Russia has a lot to SEAD/DEAD.  Reasonably it'll be fairly safe for Blueforces to operate behind the various PATRIOT/CAP/other SAM networks, and it's doubtful that NATO would be on the offensive until the Russian forces were fairly well mauled.

 

We are taslking about tactical air defense systems at the FEBA HERE.

 

You argue that the Russians are not the A Team. Not compared to the Iraqis. Serbs, iranians, North Koreans they are not. And isn't your assessment undder estimating the potential enemy? The crime of hubris can also get you burned.

 

While the emphasis will be on the air superiority battle early on CAS missions will still be flown and probably quite frequently. There is a ground warr going on an the "ground pounders" will be wanting air support Nobody is saying all air strikes will get through nor is anyone saying they will all be effective. But some will and some could turn out to be devestating. And like  said he US will probably win that air superioriy fight eventually. But, and this is important it might take a few weeks. maybe more than a month. And during that time the air threat to US groud forces is still there wouldn't you agree?

 

I suggest that it is dangerous and arrogant to assume the theat does not exist. Just as it is to assume your house won't get burned down. If you don't invest in the insurance of a proper air defense system you are going to get burned. I fear this is a lesson the US military is going t have to learrn the hard way, in war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is though that the enemy we are talking about fighting here is not the Iraqis. It isn't Islamic State. It isn't the Serbs. It isn;t ever Iran or North Korea. It is Russa - ome of the USA's Great Power rivals. This is the Premier League we are dealing wit. Not the Second Divisio and it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate them As Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did.

 

The Russian airforce is not equipped with the cast offs thhe Iraqis had. Their aircraft and pilots are probably pretty good. Sure, so are those of the US. But yiu are assuming that the air strike won't geet through. The Russians know how important your AWACS is. They are going to go after them in the air war. Russian fighters will be duelling your aircraft in the skies over Ukraine. It is going to be like that for at least the first couple of weeks. And Russian auir strikes are going to get through. It would be arrogant and stupid to assume they would not. Even Patriot won't get everything.

 

That's why you need a tactical air defence. You need it to keep up with the tanks and you need it to be able to survive in modern armoured combat.

 

It is like an insurance policy. Chances are that house fire you took out the policy against won't happen. You are a sensible guy and take lots of precautions. But if it does happen and you are not insured it is catastrophic. Likewise if that Russian air strike gets through your barely protected tank company that you did so much work training and mintaining is going to get gutted.

 The Russians are investing in their air force too. This fg for instance

 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-air-forces-super-weapon-beware-the-pak-fa-11742

 

My point abouut insurance was that some people don't insure or do not do so adequately. They risk coming up a cropper when their house burns down. As the US military risks ending up with egg on its face through failure to invest in adeqaute tactical air defences. Arethose HMMMV mounted Stinger teams really going to be enough in a high intensity conflict, unlikely as this may appear at themoment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as I said, Americans are cocky. It is easy to see how we trust our air to never lose a war and that will be a major factor in any war we are in.

 

All I am saying is If I was any country that was thinking of truly taking on and wanting to win the conflict dealing with the US. I would be working on a unexpected plan to defeat the US air and I would be doing it in a manor that has not been done before. 

 

And too many think that is a impossible event. (I personally do not)

 

Plus, as also can be seen. You still do not win wars with air, is so ISIS would be long gone.  (it takes troops on the ground ) Have you really looked at the size and number of men the US actually have that are truly available to fight a war on foreign land .

Has it been so short of a time that you do not remember how long it took to prepare for a ground war when we went to Iraq. We cannot get enough troops there fast enough if needed right away.

 

Plus how much could we strip from other locations before a second enemy might take advantage of that. And what would really take the cake would be for a second unexpected enemy to be in on the plan to wait for just that moment which will happen. Because we are spread too thin trying to guard too many interest in the world.

 

Just saying, we are cocky fools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as I said, Americans are cocky. It is easy to see how we trust our air to never lose a war and that will be a major factor in any war we are in.

 

All I am saying is If I was any country that was thinking of truly taking on and wanting to win the conflict dealing with the US. I would be working on a unexpected plan to defeat the US air and I would be doing it in a manor that has not been done before. 

 

And too many think that is a impossible event. (I personally do not)

 

Plus, as also can be seen. You still do not win wars with air, is so ISIS would be long gone.  (it takes troops on the ground ) Have you really looked at the size and number of men the US actually have that are truly available to fight a war on foreign land .

Has it been so short of a time that you do not remember how long it took to prepare for a ground war when we went to Iraq. We cannot get enough troops there fast enough if needed right away.

 

Plus how much could we strip from other locations before a second enemy might take advantage of that. And what would really take the cake would be for a second unexpected enemy to be in on the plan to wait for just that moment which will happen. Because we are spread too thin trying to guard too many interest in the world.

 

Just saying, we are cocky fools.

 

Sad to say I have to agree with all of that. The US may indeed be the best in the terms that have been presented in this thread. But what happens if somebody comes along with a new set of terms? It's happened many times in the past and it will probably happen again. Seems to me there is something called information warfare going on already, but what has happened so far is just a warm up. And it is just a subset of economic warfare. I think there are already several countries gearing up to take down the West—mainly the US—in economic warfare. They might not succeed, but even a failed attempt could be extremely unpleasant. Having the best battlefield weapons in the world would not help in this kind of war, might even be an impediment because we will have diverted so much of our economic output into creating and maintaining them. I picked up a paper the other day and was brought up short by an article stating that the US is preparing to spend one trillion—that's trillion with a 't', one thousand billion—dollars to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Now, that money won't all be spent in one year, and compared to, say, a decade's GDP is not all that much...until you start thinking about what else that trillion dollars might buy.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... was brought up short by an article stating that the US is preparing to spend one trillion—that's trillion with a 't', one thousand billion—dollars to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Now, that money won't all be spent in one year, and compared to, say, a decade's GDP is not all that much...until you start thinking about what else that trillion dollars might buy.

 

Michael

 

Hmmm, 1 Trillion (capitalized, because that much money SHOULD be) dollars? Ooh, that could reduced the current on-book deficit by...6%.

 

The biggest threat to the US is not the Russian air force. It is the US monetary policy.

 

Back to the topic...

 

The Russians have some great tech and great weapons. However, their economy prevents them from pursuing the old "quantity has a quality all its own" meme. Even if Putin orders production without payment (which he can do), the numbers of weapons they can put up are too few. Sure, they may get an E3 or two. (BTW, what scenario do you think the E3's and their fighters practice the most? If you guess "an enemy attack on the E3", you'd be close.) But, so what? Splash an E3. Okay, US tosses another one up. What forces would the Russians have lost to get that momentary advantage? How many of those AWACS raids could they carry out?

 

The US is used to profligate weapons purchases. Compare the number of 5th Generation fighters (F22/F35) the US is committed to buying (money allocated, not dream plans by the USAF brass). Compare that to EVERY OTHER NATION'S (combined) numbers.

 

Do the same exercise with M1A2 SEP. The Russians are talking Armata. Great. How many?

 

Not to be sanguine, or even arrogant, about it, but the US does not have an oppo in the same league. Some areas are near-equality. (Look at the hackers used by different nations, or some of the Russian missile tech.) But, overall, I think the nearest military threat to the US would be China. That's based on the modernization drive and the economy supporting it. (However, even that seems to be falling apart a bit.) Not to say the US can keep up the current level of military expenditure, either.

 

True power is based on the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with  the economics of our modern battlefield. I have always wondered. What happens if a war somehow is prolonged enough  in a time with the economy in a challenging state.

 

We have this tendency to use all these smart weapons for  getting the job done now. And I think about how much each one of them shots are costing and then I look to see, what kind of stock piles of these weapons do we have. How quickly would they be used up. And is there anyway to replace them in a fast manor.

 

From what little I know, there is statements as to how low we have managed to deplete our supplies at times. there is statements of stock piles not being able to last any prolonged time. So is it possible that at some point, all the advantages we presently have in the tech war would be lost just by  a planned move to make sure the war is designed to outlast the high tech munitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting example is the Falkands 1982. Britain's tactical air defence on the ground was pretty much limited to Rapier. This at a time when the Britisw army was gearing up to  fight the Soviets in Germany where the air threat would have been much worse  than anything the Argetine Air Force could have done. And they stil manged to sink a couple of amphibious landing ships at a place called Bluff Cove

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with  the economics of our modern battlefield. I have always wondered. What happens if a war somehow is prolonged enough  in a time with the economy in a challenging state.

 

We have this tendency to use all these smart weapons for  getting the job done now. And I think about how much each one of them shots are costing and then I look to see, what kind of stock piles of these weapons do we have. How quickly would they be used up. And is there anyway to replace them in a fast manor.

 

From what little I know, there is statements as to how low we have managed to deplete our supplies at times. there is statements of stock piles not being able to last any prolonged time. So is it possible that at some point, all the advantages we presently have in the tech war would be lost just by  a planned move to make sure the war is designed to outlast the high tech munitions.

 

Probably something like the infamous 1915 Shells Crisis for starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...