I don't disagree modern wars will result in whole classes of equipment being found obsolete or not cost effective, but this strikes me as odd:
[quote from the article]
> "The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric. So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune."
Well, none of those types of missiles are fundamentally new, and have existed in one way or another for decades (e.g. the HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet anti-ship missile during the Falklands War in 1982!). More importantly, they work because the Ukrainians are fighting a war of resistance against an invading force; were they to go on the offensive (hypothetical, imagine they -- like the Soviet Union in WWII -- were to advance into Moscow and decapitate its leadership) they would need tanks, and airplanes, and other allegedly "obsolete" equipment.
The Ukrainian defense works where they are given support and weapons by foreign powers and because of a Russian mismanaged offensive.
Say -- again for the sake of argument -- the invasion was a coordinated effort by NATO against an hypothetical Ukrainian rogue state. How long would they last with their Stingers and Neptune anti-ship missiles?
As a devil's advocate against my own argument, Afghanistan ended up "defeating" the US in the very long run, for reasons not directly related to the weapons they used. And what weapons did they use, anyway? (Good old) Stinger, RPGs and AKs? No Neptunes in sight.
I don't disagree modern wars will result in whole classes of equipment being found obsolete or not cost effective, but this strikes me as odd:
[quote from the article]
> "The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric. So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune."
Well, none of those types of missiles are fundamentally new, and have existed in one way or another for decades (e.g. the HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet anti-ship missile during the Falklands War in 1982!). More importantly, they work because the Ukrainians are fighting a war of resistance against an invading force; were they to go on the offensive (hypothetical, imagine they -- like the Soviet Union in WWII -- were to advance into Moscow and decapitate its leadership) they would need tanks, and airplanes, and other allegedly "obsolete" equipment.
The Ukrainian defense works where they are given support and weapons by foreign powers and because of a Russian mismanaged offensive.
Say -- again for the sake of argument -- the invasion was a coordinated effort by NATO against an hypothetical Ukrainian rogue state. How long would they last with their Stingers and Neptune anti-ship missiles?
As a devil's advocate against my own argument, Afghanistan ended up "defeating" the US in the very long run, for reasons not directly related to the weapons they used. And what weapons did they use, anyway? (Good old) Stinger, RPGs and AKs? No Neptunes in sight.