[Arodex]

>William Owen, the editor of Military Strategy Magazine and an adviser to the British army, says that better trained and equipped armies would not be tied down in the first place. If first-rate Israeli kit and training were used against an opponent of the standard of Russia or Ukraine, he argues, $3,000 FPVs would be “mostly, if not completely, irrelevant”.

Oh how much I wish Mr Owen would be sent to the front lines to see for himself how irrelevant he can make 3000$ drones.

[iammjm]

What "kit and training" is he even referring to? What let's you detect and destroy multiple small moving targets coming at you at various and unpredictable angles and speeds?? Oh and it also needs to be cheap and light-weight enough so you can equip infantry with it. AFAIK, currently there are no such systems. Unless he means shotguns and single-use net launchers, which are a last-resort thing you don't really want to rely on. And it's not for the lack of trying; it's just a very difficult problem to solve. And the problem will only get worse as drones are becoming quicker and gain more range. Already there are quadcopter drones reaching speeds of 500km/h; quadcopters with ranges of 50km+; quadcopters deployed from balloons at heights of 5km; remotely-deployed quadcopters from naval and ground drones ... and that's just one category of drones, not to mention wing-type mid-range drones now wrecking havoc at russian rear logistics at 100km+ ranges and long-range drone destroying infrastructure at 500km+ ranges. That's why the only ways of survival are concealment, digging deep underground, and turning anything that moves above ground into mad-max type porcupine monstrosities meant to absorb those fpv-drones, with varying success.

[KaiserPro]

So hes partly right.

The reason why drones are _so_ devastating in ukraine is that there is no air superiority.

that standard "modern" way is bomb the living shit out of anything armoured, and then push forward with your own armour. Hence why ukraine needed so many javelins to stop armour and helicopters.

Its also why despite the sheer amount of stuff that Iran et al threw at Isreal, it hardly got through. unlike Oman or UAE. (However thats not actually apples to apples.)

What isn't said is guerilla warefare with drones is devastating.

[notaigenerated]

"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.

[KaiserPro]

> "Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s

It means that the side without superiority has no ability to do proper logistics.

Want to move artillery? its going to get blown up.

Want to move troops? can't, because the transport is going to get blown up.

You want to supply food to 10k plus fighters? can't because it's going to get blown up.

Now, it doesn't matter what provides the air superiority, be it missiles, planes or drones.

Its not without precedent, in recent times. If we look at battleships, they went from being the thing that projected power, to a liability when air carriers dominated. the effect is the same, you drive up with your battleship/carrier group and dominated the area for 300miles radius.

[sofixa]

You establish air superiority first by doing supression of enemy air defences, then destroying any offensive capabilities they might have (air bases, fighters), and then you rule the skies.

[swat535]

This didn't work with Vietnam nor Afghanistan.. and US had 100% superiority.

[sofixa]

Yes, it did. Over both of those the US had, mostly, control of the skies.

Hanoi had extremely heavy air defences and was left mostly alone (both because of that and because it wasn't considered a politically appropriate target).

[rainworld]

> the standard "modern" war

For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up. Is feeding a civil war until he crumbles.

> bomb the living shit out of anything armoured

That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine.

> and then push forward with your own armour.

And then, as soon as you assemble let alone move in the open, you get wrecked. No one has an easy answer for this. The answer is what we’re already seeing: attrition.

> Iran

Iran prevailed in an highly asymmetric conflict by successfully attriting US/Israeli air defenses and surviving their attacks, depleting their arsenals. Which was their goal, not “levelling Tel Aviv”—however much they would have liked to.

Finally, what Israel is facing in Lebanon right now is but a pale imitation of what’s going on in Ukraine. But bad enough. One can imagine what just a couple days of Ukraine-level losses would do to them, militarily and politically. No matter their air superiority.

[sofixa]

> For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up

The US has tried to do it a few times (most notably Vietnam), but it isn't the strategy in the slightest. The goal is always an Iraq style campaign with heavy air attacks to destroy/confuse most enemy capabilities before a swift invasion.

Terrorising the population in submission has never worked. The US Air Force's own study of strategic air power after WW2 concluded so.

> That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine

> and then push forward with your own armour

If you rule the skies, you shoot down most attacking drones / it becomes too dangerous to launch drones from short to medium distances (because you'd be found out and destroyed ASAP). It's important to remember that not all wars are the same, and a competent army from a strong military power wouldn't have gotten bogged down to trenches in the first place. Mobile warfare is all about speed and unpredictability and the enemy being unable to react in time