NATO is spending 15 times more money to produce fewer munitions than Russia, and those munitions are not fifteen times as effective. Ukraine has not been able to make any significant changes in their frontline because they can only fire a fraction of the shells that Russia can and the imbalance is tipping further into Russia's direction.
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
It's basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
Every modern war between peers has been a test of one sides productive ability against the other's. The US won WWII, and forced a stalemate in Korea because it had enormously more industrial power, and could afford to spend equipment instead of lives.
those munitions are not fifteen times as effective
By what metric are you basing this off of? What's your evidence? The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
Of course it's gonna be difficult or impossible to say how it would fair head to head against Russian fighters, but again, if Russia has these, why aren't they in use and how is Ukraine giving them such trouble?
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
I mean, duh? But that's not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Small arms advantage guess to bulk as failures aren't catastrophic and the whole accuracy by volume thing is real.
Missiles, artillery etc? I'd say the advantage is probably soundly in the higher tech end because it makes it exponentially more effective.
Ukraine has been holding off Russia for how long now with leftover scraps from Western countries?
but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
According to what, the fever dreams of some MIC thinktank writer? It's never seen combat against a peer force. Acting as if it's some god-like wunderwaffen when it's been nothing but a MIC grift for decades is the purest of copium, especially as we're seeing other Western wunderwaffen get absolutely spanked in Ukraine right now - even the so called invincible M1 Abrams and Challengers are getting wrecked at alarming rates
Remember that the F-117 was considered the best stealth fighter around, a revolutionary new plane that would change warfare, invisible and unstoppable - and then it got shot down by an out of date export variant AA missile in Serbia who watched the thing on radar the whole time
But that's not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Is the NATO stuff more reliable or just more expensive and rare? I think the reliability argument is just cope. There are articles kicking around about ukrainians complaining that the abrams tanks are not reliable because they need frequent maintenance. There's this article talking about vehicles Canada donated being bad at offroading. I would like to see evidence that the assertion that NATO stuff is more reliable is actually true.
NATO is spending 15 times more money to produce fewer munitions than Russia, and those munitions are not fifteen times as effective. Ukraine has not been able to make any significant changes in their frontline because they can only fire a fraction of the shells that Russia can and the imbalance is tipping further into Russia's direction.
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
Every modern war between peers has been a test of one sides productive ability against the other's. The US won WWII, and forced a stalemate in Korea because it had enormously more industrial power, and could afford to spend equipment instead of lives.
By what metric are you basing this off of? What's your evidence? The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
https://lexingtoninstitute.org/the-f-35-is-the-safest-and-most-capable-fighter-the-u-s-military-has/#:~:text=In%20recent%20Red%20Flag%20aerial,improved%20their%20scores%20as%20well.
Of course it's gonna be difficult or impossible to say how it would fair head to head against Russian fighters, but again, if Russia has these, why aren't they in use and how is Ukraine giving them such trouble?
I mean, duh? But that's not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Small arms advantage guess to bulk as failures aren't catastrophic and the whole accuracy by volume thing is real.
Missiles, artillery etc? I'd say the advantage is probably soundly in the higher tech end because it makes it exponentially more effective.
Ukraine has been holding off Russia for how long now with leftover scraps from Western countries?
According to what, the fever dreams of some MIC thinktank writer? It's never seen combat against a peer force. Acting as if it's some god-like wunderwaffen when it's been nothing but a MIC grift for decades is the purest of copium, especially as we're seeing other Western wunderwaffen get absolutely spanked in Ukraine right now - even the so called invincible M1 Abrams and Challengers are getting wrecked at alarming rates
Remember that the F-117 was considered the best stealth fighter around, a revolutionary new plane that would change warfare, invisible and unstoppable - and then it got shot down by an out of date export variant AA missile in Serbia who watched the thing on radar the whole time
Removed by mod
Is the NATO stuff more reliable or just more expensive and rare? I think the reliability argument is just cope. There are articles kicking around about ukrainians complaining that the abrams tanks are not reliable because they need frequent maintenance. There's this article talking about vehicles Canada donated being bad at offroading. I would like to see evidence that the assertion that NATO stuff is more reliable is actually true.
Removed by mod
teenager who still reads Air Force ROTC Quarterly back issues his older brother left when he went to college
Which capability has never been needed in teh forty years since the design of the plane began.
Barring any wild and outlandish contingencies such as rain