My point wasn’t that the Bismarck was totally ineffective. It was that Germany and others built a nice battleships right when battleships were no longer the key to naval power
As mentioned, modern warfare is expensive. Even back in the days of Vietnam when crew chiefs were scrounging parts from broken birds, there was a regular rotation of airframes going back to Utah for refurbishing, and rebuilt aircraft were flown back into the fight. Just think of the GF as a giant airframe. ?How many cat launches has it make. ?How “normal” are her various cables, including the “catch” barrier on the angle. Just to name some.
?How many carriers do we have. I believe last count, 7 or 8, About 3 are in dry-dock at any given time, getting refitted. The rest cruise the oceans and seas, according to some penti’s assessment of the perceived threat in a given area. Those perceptions change with time, so carriers get moved about a bit.
I suppose the more serious question is what the heck we need a carrier there in the first place. Hamas is as nasty as they come but have no real air force nor navy.
This touches on another aspect of the “cheap quantity versus expensive quality” issue. No matter how impressive & powerful a nuclear-powered super-carrier or a B2 bomber may be, does any politician ever want to risk the loss of a $1,000 Million bomber or a $10,000 Million carrier?
Some of today’s weapons systems may simply be too expensive to risk in actual combat against a capable enemy. And with the proliferation of missiles from Iran, UK, and – for a price – the Ukraine, almost any of today’s combatants may turn out to be “capable”.
The unfortunate US taxpayers may be paying for a very expensive but essentially unusable show force.
It’s not just about the money. The optics of losing a major platform like a carrier with thousands of service members on board would be terrible for the Regime. It’s not clear that the corporate media could manage to paper over that.
Aha!!! Yet another example of the “balance” one has to strike in a fight.
Overall it is relatively easy to conclude one should not be involved directly in fights that don’t directly impinge upon one’s own nation. The Falkins are a great example. The Brits were involved; they fought. We were not; we didn’t fight. ?How about WWI. The people were against us being involved in an European land war, Wilson campaigned for reelection on keeping us OUT of that war. Yet no sooner did he win his reelection than he dragged us INTO it. Lots of arguments that that war would have had a much more “equitable” solution had we — and Wilson - not meddled in it.
As for expensive vs cheap, that division is moot. People each have a style of fighting. We have tons of little sayings about that, but in truth only ONE counts: Always cheat. Always win. If you’re not cheating, you’re not winning!
WE of the USoA have always fought using grit, determination, invention, and a sense of righteousness. We lost 7,000 men just in a practice for D-day. We pressed on. We had the whole 101st Airborne surrounded at The Bulge. They didn’t surrender despite the Germans having more expensive equipment; they fought until Patton arrived to break open the encirclement. ?And where was the vaunted “MONTY” - who had plenty of “expensive equipment at the time - all this time - in his trenches **right next door - doing nothing!**.
Some of this kind of discussion should take place in any free society. I think, though, one need be wary of “conclusions” reached without consulting the “dogfaces”
A Javelin anti-tank missile costs almost $200,000 and will destroy one Russian tank. The average battlefield drone – with upgraded sensors and other modifications – costs around $2,000 and is equally effective under most circumstances.
If we allowed kids to make ATGMs in their garages like we used to, they would be a lot less expensive than $200,000 and many might be even more effective than Javelin.
Per the delusional English Royal United Services Institute:
“… doing this effectively requires producing and fielding at least 10,000 autonomous air, land, and sea drones per week with the requisite sensors, AI and firepower to punch through Russian lines and break morale.”
Reaches for calculator. $2,000 per unit * 10,000 per week = $20 Million per week = $1 Billion per year.
Will someone please tell “Joe Biden” that he does not need to send $61 Billion borrowed/printed Dollars to Zelensky. The actual financial requirement for promoting war in the Ukraine is so much lower that even England could pay for it themselves – if RUSI is to be taken seriously!
You’re missing the point of sending $61B to Zelensky. There’s no limit to how much money can be laundered in Ukraine and this is disconnected from the cost of destroying Russian tanks or conducting war altogether.
I’m not so sure they can pull it off, especially if conscription is required. If the Regime tries this, it may be the breaking point. Some crisis will bring the Regime down; it’s just not clear which one,
From the article: "The LMADIS uses RPS-42 radar to provide 360-degree air surveillance and long-range drone detection capability.
It also has a dismountable electronic warfare system to disrupt enemy drones and a multi-channel manpack radio system to communicate everything it detects to nearby troops."
Now let’s put ourselves in the position of Houti command – What are we to do?
It would not be long before some bright spark would say – It is easy! We simply send out one of those cheap Chinese drones. The US switches on its expensive RPS-42 radar and that multi-channel radio, and we fire off one of those radar-seeking missiles we got from the Ukraine at a real bargain price. Problem over!
Not that easy. Artillery and anti-artillery radar has been around for a long time and is effective - if you allow it to be. Same issue here. Drones are small, so would be recognised only up close and personal. Anti-radar missiles are large, fifed from a long way away, and so subject to their own anti-missile missile attacks. Distance and size would allow anti-radar attacks against the Houthi’s to be quite effective. We played this game in the air over North Vietnam. The RVN would lock an American fighter up, launch. a SAM, then have to immediately turn off the guidance radar as the inbound anti-radar missiles would otherwise destroy the site before the SAM could be guided against the US A/C.
goes to military industrial complex to build toys for Ukraine