@co-hoosier yes, and we cannot afford to have a million of those weapons lying around.
There are times pinpoint accuracy matters. There are times though we are trying to hit a $300,000 system with a $2.5 million weapon. There are hardened targets, or urban targets where we fear collateral damage where every inch matters. But I cannot imagine a scenario that every missile strike to date has needed that accuracy. Trump has said we have a lot of old weapons we can still use. We should have already been using them.
A near miss takes out a mobile launcher. We should save the good stuff for the targets that justify the use.
@carramrod missile defense is costly, no way around that. But compare a US cruise missile to a Ukrainian drone in cost. We are trying to make new cruise missiles at hopefully $800,000. Still double the Ukrainian drones
The gap between the capability of a single Tomahawk and even a swarm of 50 attacks drones is about 1000x that of the gap between a Tiger and a Sherman.
Anyway, I won’t disagree with you that we need to find a way to fix the unit economics of munitions and weapons systems we use in many situations. This Administrations Pentagon has done a better job moving in that direction than any other in recent memory.
@carramrod would it be fair to say that the military has gotten considerably better under trump?
@bar-down overly broad question I’d say. They have a better understanding of procurement challenges and a stronger will to make the necessary changes than others.
@carramrod noted. appreciate the insight. we're lucky to have djt and pete.
@carramrod would it be fair to say that the military has gotten considerably better under trump?
Considerably? No. It was the best in the world before Trump and is still the best in the world. The big concern is that China’s military is getting better every year and our expenditure of precision munitions in this war is narrowing the gap.
@arthur-dent a lot of this sounds like overkill pissing money away
It is but the cheaper option is sending in troops...which is unpopular and often political suicide.
@carramrod There are areas Trump is making moves in, but the cruise missile research program started in 2024.
A few for the interested.
Iran thinks the US will let it keep the Strait of Hormuz | AP News
Unacceptable demands. Tehran issues drastic new demands for deal to reopen Hormuz, says US must 'correct its behavior' | The Times of Israel
Netanyahu rejects Gaza plan in new break from Trump
Yemeni military says Houthi attack on Mocha kills 7, wounds 30 | Reuters
Houthis' claims of deadly attacks stoke fears of a wider regional conflict | AP News
Strait of Hormuz deal may require a compromise from Trump | AP News
It draws considerable support from the Islamists bubbling up within the USA Democratic Party.
Oh, FFS. This is ridiculous.
@co-hoosier yes, and we cannot afford to have a million of those weapons lying around.
There are times pinpoint accuracy matters. There are times though we are trying to hit a $300,000 system with a $2.5 million weapon. There are hardened targets, or urban targets where we fear collateral damage where every inch matters. But I cannot imagine a scenario that every missile strike to date has needed that accuracy. Trump has said we have a lot of old weapons we can still use. We should have already been using them.
A near miss takes out a mobile launcher. We should save the good stuff for the targets that justify the use.
Older munitions require using planes and pilots. Much more vulnerability than firing off surface to surface missiles from outside of Iran than going into their airspace repeatedly.
@co-hoosier yes, and we cannot afford to have a million of those weapons lying around.
There are times pinpoint accuracy matters. There are times though we are trying to hit a $300,000 system with a $2.5 million weapon. There are hardened targets, or urban targets where we fear collateral damage where every inch matters. But I cannot imagine a scenario that every missile strike to date has needed that accuracy. Trump has said we have a lot of old weapons we can still use. We should have already been using them.
A near miss takes out a mobile launcher. We should save the good stuff for the targets that justify the use.
Older munitions require using planes and pilots. Much more vulnerability than firing off surface to surface missiles from outside of Iran than going into their airspace repeatedly.
I'm confused by this discussion. I thought the only munitions we were actually short on were defensive ones, like interceptors. Are we running short on offensive munitions, too?