It’s mind boggling how wrong that statement manages to be in only two sentences. It’s like every word manages to be wrong multiple times

Hats off to you sir

OP sentences have issues, but I understood what they meant.

I don't even know why I clicked on this thread. It's like reading a thread on economics or other topics where we tech folk think our success at pushing around bits makes us instant expert on anything we ponder.

Most of the responses here are either demonstrating a heavy bias, an utter lack of background knowledge or both.

It reminds me of a Age of Empires campaign I played at a LAN from a long while back, where the game went on for 20 hours and ended in a stalemate between an atomic age player and a very primitive age player. The atomic player had total control of the map, they were carpet bombing the entire thing with nuclear weapons. But they could only create them so fast while the primitive player was running around on horses, just surviving enough to prevent the other player from winning. The only reason the game ended was because I tripped over the power cord to one of the computers.

To me, that's what modern warfare looks like.

Ah, you mean Empire Earth. I loved that game, it had a great soundtrack.

Sounds like it indeed. The balance was... interesting, a single tank could not win against a dozen cavemen.

Weapons are designed with an opponent in mind, and guarded against the expected threat models from that opponent. Everything breaks down when the opponent does not what you want them to.

I don't see how a single tank could win against 12 cavemen, but I digress. It's a video game.

Right right Empire Earth! My memory is a little fuzzy it must have been 20 years ago.

Empire earth slapped so hard. Both 1 and 2. Honestly now that I’m thinking about it, going to set aside some time this weekend and play it again!

I don't remember Age of Empires having an atomic age?

It was probably Rise of Nations or one of the other similar games.

If I had to guess I think they meant empire earth instead.

> If this conflict continues we're going to see a lot of US assets in fragments.

Yep, Iran recently destroyed a high tech radar plane ("AWACS") at a base in Saudi Arabia: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-war-attack-us-base-s...

It's only "high tech" to the aforementioned cavemen. To everyone else it's a 707 you can't even get spare tires for any more, equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard. I mean it has a mechanical waveguide for crying out loud.

> equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard.

So I guess the US won't have any issues replacing it at a cheaper cost (as far as I understood that one cost $500 million, give or take).

The prototype E-7 cost $2 billion. It's a 737 with some radios.

"On 22 March 2019, the UK Defence Secretary announced a $1.98 billion contract to purchase five Boeing E-7 Wedgetails"

Prototype price isn't really that meaningful

(Also it's a 767 not a 737, that was the E-3 I think.)

You must be thinking of a different boondoggle, the E-767, which is the obsolete radar package from the E-3 bolted to a 767. The E-7 is a 737.

Ah right, it's a bit confusing between the bunch of these.

Nonetheless the price tag was only $400M/ea E-7 for the UK in 2019 (usual later price shenanigans not included)

When the first-tier hostile leadership structure was eliminated in the first day of the war, and only after a month do the surviving enemies finally manage to damage a plane so severely that it can't return to a friendly base to land, is "quite useless" an adequate and accurate description of the technology used to prosecute that war?

When you decapitate a well organised military, all you achieve is installing a new enemy you know little about you can’t predict their actions and that now know they are fighting for their own survival.

Not the best place to be.

Americans seem to underestimate everyone else.

It's useful in saving the pilot's life. With less advanced tecnologies, more pilots would have been shoot down. It's useful in targeted attacks, but they have proved themself uneffective (at least for now) as the new leadership is alined with the objective of the replaced one. It's close to useless when it comes to making the war cost-effective, which start being a relevant metric when the conflict start lasting too long. Of course the US has a bigger economy, so all the news about cheaper systems damaging or destroying quite expensive ones may still lead to a US victory, but a costly one for sure

As the Soviet Union made us learn, you don’t need a big military victory to make your enemy spend themselves into defeat.

Whether you have specific leadership or not doesn't matter much to (a) having to adapt to the enemy and learn what works, and (b) probability just doing its thing, more chances and so on, and (c) US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.

> US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.

And they voted for this not only once, but twice.

A month after the president claims total air superiority over Iran and complete destruction of their anti air capabilities.