[jcranmer]

> The US military executed nearly flawlessly

The US military exhibited numerous flaws. To cover numerous flaws not yet covered by other replies:

* Required the deployment of assets beyond their useful operational capability (which caused the aircraft carrier to catch fire).

* Demonstrated that their targeting list is not only based on outdated information, but failed to update that information when informed it was outdated (which led to the bombing of the elementary school).

* Failed to anticipate literally the one military contingency everyone expected Iran to do--close the strait. Hell, even after it was clear that was happened and everyone was screaming "what are you going to do about it?" the answer was, shockingly "absolutely nothing."

* Failed to adequately secure supply lines to ensure that military units in the area have sufficient food. This is literally logistics 101 stuff.

* Defined operational success criteria not based on results achieved but on effort spent--in other words, how many bombs you launched rather than whether or not the targets you wanted destroyed were destroyed.

* Definitely several C2 issues we're not entirely privy to, given the midair collision that cost a tanker, and the loss of an AWACS unit.

The strategic issues are even more myriad, but since strategy is supposed to be largely a civilian, not military, decision, it's not really the military's fault. Except I will note that a lot of civilians in this field do come from ex-military background, and there does seem to be a major recurring problem that CENTCOM is producing a lot of people with really bad strategic judgement that is partially responsible for this debacle in the first place. Really to the point that we should consider blackballing everyone from CENTCOM from ever having a military or civilian defense job of importance ever again.

[AtlasBarfed]

You missed the biggest one

Us military has had active demonstrations of the importance of advanced drone munitions FOR TEN YEARS NOW and completely dropped the ball.

It is clear that an organizational level the US military does not have infantry level short and medium-range drone capability like Ukraine does, and more importantly, like all of our enemies do.

It's not just a matter of the US military needing to do a bunch a weapons designs. Procurement politics can't close the drone capability gap.

Because the fundamental capability is cheap and flexible, whereas the entire Pentagon weapons procurement is big, expensive and inflexible

The US Marines are now functionally ineffective. The US cannot execute a marine invasion in the current military capabilities, not without taking publicly untenable losses

The US Navy still has deep water capability and can still exert strategic influence, but at a tactical level, which is in near shore/littoral arenas, they are now useless, and the political procurement process to make weapons to make them relevant again is the same problem. The infantry level one does, but it's even bigger and has even more organizational resistance

[jcranmer]

I disagree.

For all of Iran's supposed mastery of drone warfare, do note that the damage those drones have done to the US military is... essentially nil. No ships have been sunk; no aircraft have been lost. There have been some lives lost due to a drone attack on a facility troops were staying area, but at first read, I'm going to chalk that up more to the US military generally not planning for Iran to respond at all to a bombing raid rather than drones per se being particularly effective. Where the drones have been effective have been as a form of precision bombing--exactly the same kind of missions the US military has achieved with its regular air forces, albeit at a considerably greater distance from its homeland than any drone-based force has been able to achieve.

I think many people are way too quick to point to drone warfare as the obvious future of warfare, without considering the environment in which wars operate and how it might play out differently for different combatants. The US has a general assumption of complete and total air superiority in its conflicts--and the last time it didn't have that was over 70 years ago--and the number of countries that can meaningfully contest US air superiority is unknown but very few. The lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War--a conflict where neither side has air superiority--are thus somewhat limited for a US conflict against most of its enemies. (Although I do agree that the US military is too sanguine about not learning from the Russo-Ukrainian War).

[budman1]

USAF did lose an AWACS plane to a drone attack. Why? It was out in the open. I would think some minimal concealment / camouflage would have made an easy drone target into an impossible one. Same with the early warning radars that were destroyed; someone was asleep in command not posturing these systems such that they were at least slightly harder to find and hit.

Overall, the drones were militarily a bunch of mosquito's. None of the US allies 'enjoyed' having civilian targets hit by the Iranian drones, but the military impact was minor at best.

Unless you want to put boots on the ground, you send missiles and drop bombs.

The Iranian drones would have been a lot more of a problem if they were harassing ground troops on the way to Tehran.

(does the US need counter drone systems? yes, absolutely. is air superiority dead? not at all)

[slaw]

Yes, the US military is not prepared for modern war.