The article smells of AI psychosis. They are already "orchestrating".
In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country.
Now they struggle against Iran and "orchestrate" F-16s that can be shot down instantly by AA weapons. Since COVID the world has collectively lost its mind.
> In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country.
The scope of the first Iraq war was to force them out of Kuwait. That is very different then the invasion of 2003. If you just think about it this should be obvious.
Nope. An ability to set and accomplish sensible war goals and an ability to overpower enemy's armed forces are not the same thing at all. As US has demonstrated repeatedly.
A fleet of AI-controlled F-16s? That contributes to the latter.
A lack of clear goals is a symptom of bigger, organizational issues is what I’m reading. The problem isn’t as much raw firepower as it is strategy and execution.
Clearly, the technical solution to that is to remove the command over US armed forces from the US president, and hand it over to something more sensible - more capable of setting and executing military strategy. Like Skynet.
Braindead take. The scope is always narrow up front whether it's "15 days to open the strait" or "15 days to slow the spread" - not all of us fall for that.
The scope of the second Iraq war was not narrow, it was regime change. At the beginning of the war the George W. Bush administration explicitly demanded that both Saddam and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.
By comparison, the only demands made upon Iraq during the first gulf war was that they withdraw from Kuwait and rescind their declaration of annexation.
Unless those very F-16s shred their way through the AA weapons first, that is. Or follow up once the stealthier, more survivable platforms pave the way.
Iran had a solid AA system - and the level of impunity with which US operated with over Iran should give every country that wants to rely on its AA a pause. US SEAD/DEAD capabilities are fucking scary.
Of all the things that went wrong with Iran: USAF's capability to get in, punch through AA and rain fires from the sky sure wasn't one.
I would argue that their dominance in SEAD made them overconfident about suppression of OWD and IRBM launch. They failed to address the key risk to the strategic mission because of an obsession with air dominance.
Iran and Russia have likewise been overconfident about GBAD, which is effective against crewed fighters but useless against massed drone attacks.
If the US LUCAS (Shaheed clone) had better ISR and semi-autonomous engagement it could have achieved much better suppression. But that is not a pilot in the loop option and USAF is deeply uncomfortable with that.
IRBMs weren't the problem. The launches tapered off fast - either due to munition depletion and supply disruption, attrition of launchers and munitions, or efforts to conceal the launchers in face of persistent airstrikes. Either way, the threat was suppressed.
By all accounts, US is much better at "Scud hunt" now than it was back during the last attempt at it.
One-way attack drones? That's a new threat, and one US is far less equipped to tackle.
But I don't think that "OWA threat" was where US strategic planning has failed. From the outside, it seems like US plan was to make a single decisive strike, and negotiate with cowed Iran from there. Iran has failed to be cowed by a single decisive strike, and there was no workable Plan B for forcing it to submit if it didn't. That's the key strategic failing. Persistent OWA threat is downstream from that.
The IRBMs are a huge problem. IRGC is using them sparingly, but they were not destroyed.
USAF has actually failed when it comes to 'scud hunt'. It doesn't have the combat ISR or strike capability it needs. As a result, the US basing and resupply situation is chaotic. The loss of the THAAD battery is extremely problematic, which is why they had to move one from SK.
The OWD capability allows Iran to attack tankers anywhere in the Gulf. Even with a surge in GCC state IAMD capability, ships cannot be protected. The failure to address this capability in planning was critical.
Obviously the DoD leadership is cowed by Hegseth and wouldn't give a true assessment, so we have a lions led by donkeys situation, but the operational plan was still bad.
Oh what a great CIA campaign that would be to give the impression that U.S. military isn’t up to par - to motivate and trick our enemies into making stupid moves while we keep our true cards hidden.
You say that, but that's literally a Russian conspiracy theory with Ukraine: The US baited Russia into thinking the US was weak because of Afghanistan, and then Russia got all ballsy and walked into Ukraine and it was a trap.
McCain was actually on the money in 2008. He was in the audience when Putin gave that famous "warning to the west" speech in Germany [1].
The quip that Russia is a "gas station with nuclear weapons" about sums it up. The United States being weak or not really has nothing to do with it. They counted on Zelensky cutting and running, the attempted decapitation of Kyiv failed. Russia is swirling the toilet. Without the energy reserves their oligarchs would be worthless. Since most of what is actually valuable about their country is land (where the resources sit) that is sparsely inhabited the end state of China controlling most of what is now Russia is inevitable. By failing in Europe and tying himself to China, Putin has ensured Russian power will continue to erode. Of course, it's not great for China, having to deal with two nuclear armed pariahs on their borders.
The United States is truly blessed simply by being two oceans away from anyone who could remotely challenge it. Properly understood, the Monroe (or "Donroe" doctrine) is less about foreign intervention and more an understanding that if a peer power ever emerged in the Western Hemisphere, most of what appears to make the United States singular would rapidly disappear.
"The United States is truly blessed simply by being two oceans away from anyone who could remotely challenge it." This is tragical misunderstanding of the situation. Both military and ecologically.
Because the most powerful military in the world can only do so much when ordered to execute a crap strategy by civilian leadership. Desert Storm worked because it followed the Powell Doctrine and was bounded to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. Iraqi Freedom muddled through incoherently because the Bush and Obama administrations didn't want to understand the actual problem set they were faced with, but ultimately ended up with a reasonably stable country after way too much effort and time. Iran is what happens when you have an administration who thinks you can win a war by "just bombing things," which is ironically the stereotype most of the internet has about any kind of military action.
Yes but everyone knows you can't eliminate the risk from modern MANPADs even with fancy electronic systems and flares. They are conducting combat flights over a country with thousands of chinese MANPADs, the fact they haven't lost more planes is really a great achievement.
The US lost 73 planes in Desert Storm to Iraq and that war only lasted 43 days. By comparison the losses from Iran have been shockingly low and shows how much US navy/airforce capabilities have matured.
MANPADS are mostly relevant to helicopters, pretty useless against a jet at altitudes. You need a SHORAD system at the minimum, like a Pantsir, and they have electronic signatures that make them targets.
Most of the aircraft losses in Desert Storm were due to CFIT and flying into AAA and low altitude weapons. This was a relic of cold war tactics for penetrating Warsaw Pact defences. Once they started flying higher the problem was contained.
Fair enough. I read the F-15E that went down was likely a MANPAD because it was flying low at the time and there were spotters. Or it was some clever SHORAD ambush with something they kept hidden.
Using F-15s/A-10s to hunt for Shaheed launchers is inherently susceptible to ambush. They are doctrinally driven to attack the launch teams because of their theory of victory, when intercepting vehicles in flight is much safer.
If the USAF had combat capable drones, for ISR, ground strike and intercept, that wouldn't be such an issue. But their ISR drones are too slow and expensive, same with Reaper.
> In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country.
The objectives for the two wars were incredibly different, making this an apples to oranges comparison. In the first war, the objective was to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait (achieved) and then to contain the Iraqi military within Iraq (achieved). In the second war, the objectives were much broader and much harder to achieve. They achieved some objectives (toppling the existing government, defeating the existing military), and then utterly failed in nation building and got into a protracted conflict with state and non-state sponsored military groups.
Some nation building occurred, but mostly corruption. This was after the first war where they deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure like power plants, water treatment plants, hospitals and such to create a failed nation. A country that was one of the most modern and developed middle eastern countries before the war.
I feel that, "Everyone else is mad" is a really big red flag for one's own mental health and emotional state, rather than an accurate rendition of reality.
I'm not saying that the war didn't go on for 10 years, it did. Baathist government fell and the US led Coalition Provisional Authority took over running the country. You have US troops in the whole country and US control of all civil institutions. The only way that's not "occupying" the country is if you redefine what the word mean. With your definition France, Norway, Denmark, Poland, and many more were not occupied during ww2.
Drones really changed the equation more than Covid. Autonomous F-16's already can win against all human pilots. This would have been big 20 years ago. Now the cheap drones make it not the biggest deal anymore.
As I understand it, they done this in simulation, and the human pilots did not fare well.
I don't know of the computer aircraft were able to fly beyond human limits (i.e. they don't black out) or not. If the computers can actually fly to what the airframe is capable of, they would have a distinct advantage over the human pilots.
In any case, dogfighting is commonly done because it's great training but in most cases, you expect most Air to Air combat being flinging missiles at each other.
The first time an airline pilot flies a new aircraft type in the real world they fly it with a plane full of passengers. All the training up to that point is done in a simulator.
Now that first flight is with an experienced training captain but the point is the simulator is good enough that the FAA has signed off on using that as the primary training device.
Many of the crash reports from the likes of Mentor Pilot on YouTube call out insufficient type-experience as a cause of accidents. Sometimes it's "the same" type, but the manufacturers manipulated the situation, the changes mean unfamiliarity and that leads to deaths.
Not giving pilots live training on new types is for financial reasons. It doesn't cause more deaths than the cost differential between training and compensation allow for.
With respect to assessing whether an AI-controlled aircraft using only available onboard sensors and datalinks can defeat a manned aircraft in BFM, it's not even in the same ZIP code. You've never flown BFM, have you? I have.
Is that hard to believe? It's got to be one of the easiest situations for AI to win in. You probably don't even need any fancy modern AI; I would have thought MPC would do most of the job.
You don't need F-16s at all if you have cheap drones. Why send an expensive plane with a pilot to bomb some country if you can send a drone that costs as little as a basic SUV instead?
Opening up ways to pressure the Russian economy in a war of choice does equate to achieving decisive battlefield advantages.
There's a reason those drones hit oil refineries and not steel works.
That's not to undermine how the strategic environment has changed, but to imagine that now - after the change - it'll obviously stay that way forever is ridiculous.
Ukraine is not being destroyed by unstoppable swarms of cheap drones which Russia is perfectly capable of producing. So clearly this story is more complicated.
Mostly on foot now. They tried using tanks today in Dobropillia, which was very rare and surprising! 28 (https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/NotWoofers/status/208005697904... didnt even know they had that many left and concentrated in one spot) destroyed in an ~hour, attack routed.
>Ukraine is not being destroyed by unstoppable swarms of cheap drones which Russia is perfectly capable of producing.
They arent unstoppable to Ukrainians _now_. Even mighty US just gave up its bases letting Iran destroy hundreds of millions of infrastructure (and kill base staff) with zero attempts at defense. Afaik only Baghdad base has a C-Ram that actually works against flying lawnmovers.
Yes, its more complicated, horses for courses etc. But the idea one needs a jet or cruise missiles to bomb an adversary is an outdated one and whoever clings to it will pay dearly. Its probably a matter of time before Iran tries mass drones launched off a container ship into continental US with zero resistance.
Cheap drones are only effective against soft targets. Many high priority targets are not soft. Even Ukraine invests in expensive systems to defeat harder targets.
Bush Sr knew to keep the foreign-compromised media out of the war and so accomplished the objectives of the war swiftly. Bush Jr had to deal with the media second guessing everything.
In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country.
Now they struggle against Iran and "orchestrate" F-16s that can be shot down instantly by AA weapons. Since COVID the world has collectively lost its mind.