War game is not needed. The war with Iran has already proven that a relatively tiny but sophisticated opponent can have massive asymmetric impact on USA.
War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
21–30 of 106 posts
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#22Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
It is about force projection though. Ok, you have a bunch of drones in the US, now how do you use them to attack Iran or in the pacific theatre? Yes, aircraft carriers aren't nearly as unstoppable as they were in WWII, but they are still the most versatile mobile platforms the world has for projecting force around the globe.
Projection works up until someone calls the bluff, just like Iran did.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#23Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
> I don't even know how an aircraft carrier would begin to defend itself against an onslaught of thousands of drones.
$13 billion dollar military toybox?
Let’s think.
EMP.
Nets.
Defensive Drones.
Superdome.
Finding the solution isn’t hard - choosing and implementing it takes time when you’re a stumbling behemoth.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#24Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
A Shahed is only useful against stationary soft targets, which an aircraft carrier is not. It also doesn’t have the kind of heavy warhead or terminal guidance required to defeat the armored structure of naval ships. Shahed doesn’t have any kind of countermeasure avoidance. Adding these would massively increase the cost. Naval anti-ship drones have been around for many decades. This is a highly evolved area of militar…
Modern Shaheds can be controlled through satellite links like StarLink, with high quality video. Also, targeting a large pile of metal in the sea should not be difficult with something like a radar.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#25Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
> I don't even know how an aircraft carrier would begin to defend itself against an onslaught of thousands of drones. $13 billion dollar military toybox? Let’s think. EMP. Nets. Defensive Drones. Superdome. Finding the solution isn’t hard - choosing and implementing it takes time when you’re a stumbling behemoth.
what is a superdome?
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#26"Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft…
Interesting. This is exactly what Trump would do too. "The biggest most massive assault is coming tomorrow. Complete Destruction."
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#27Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
I'm not sure a carrier strike group would actually outright lose to a giant swarm of drones, at least in terms of the carrier being sunk. A Shahed warhead is pretty small once you're using it against large warships. That said, I wonder why you don't see Ukraine and Russia doing this more -- "saving up" for massive clouds of long range strike drones every couple weeks, instead of sending out a couple hundred every nig…
A carrier is nearly impossible to sink. However, a bunch of flaming jet fuel sloshing around a big bathtub with thousands of americans on it is effectively as disastrous.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#28War game is not needed. The war with Iran has already proven that a relatively tiny but sophisticated opponent can have massive asymmetric impact on USA.
Relatively tiny? It is a 92 million person organisation with a 1.7 trillion dollar turnover, 2500+ years of continuous operations and covering an area 1/6th the size of USA.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#29How is this dissimilar to the Ukrainian "Spider Web" attack on the Russian TU-22M and TU-95 aircraft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb
Iran doesn't have real-time spy satellites and Starlink. it can only launch their shitty shaheds at stationary targets in impotent rage like Russia does.
Anyone can buy a StarLink terminal though. Also, you can use a friend's spy satellite if you don't have your own.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#30Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…
> I don't even know how an aircraft carrier would begin to defend itself against an onslaught of thousands of drones. $13 billion dollar military toybox? Let’s think. EMP. Nets. Defensive Drones. Superdome. Finding the solution isn’t hard - choosing and implementing it takes time when you’re a stumbling behemoth.
> Finding the solution isn’t hard
Finding a solution isn't hard until your adversary adjusts their tacts slightly and bypasses it a week later