[JumpCrisscross]

The interception disparity really drives home how air superiority dominates modern war planning. (That and not getting scammed on Russian kit.)

[dacox]

i feel like i misunderstand the UI - it seems to show coalition strikes mostly being intercepted? or does the bottom row refer to strikes against coalition forces?

[paustint]

Same. Why does it have a "belligerent" tag/badge - that seems to indicate bias.

But other than not understanding the data, the UI looks really fancy.

[HardCodedBias]

I doubt that the Russian kit is a scam.

I'm sure it is reasonably good. It just can't compete with the US's combination of technology, quantity, and operational excellence.

I don't mean that in a rah-rah way, it just seems to be the reality.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It just can't compete with the US's combination of technology, quantity, and operational excellence

Or Israeli. In India, it couldn’t compete with Chinese kit.

If Russia sold its air-defence systems as only protecting against Hezbollah-caliber munitions, you’d be correct. They didn’t. They pitched it as a bulwark against a superpower. (Saddam learned the same lesson in 2003.)

[ceejayoz]

> I doubt that the Russian kit is a scam.

I think there are pretty clear signs.

The T-14 Armata and Sukhoi Su-57 not really showing up in Ukraine, for example. As well as the S-500, which seems to be vulnerable to even 1990s tech like the ATACMS.

[idontwantthis]

I don’t think Iran ever thought their defenses would do jack in a full on invasion. They thought (rightfully) that their defenses would force the US to go all in if they wanted to do anything significant.

[JumpCrisscross]

> don’t think Iran ever thought their defenses would do jack in a full on invasion

I imagine they thought it might shoot down one plane. Or their anti-ship missiles might hit one ship.