Israeli know-how boosts Russia's armed UAS project

[Flamming_Python]

I think such UAV is very useful in full scale wars, but of course it should be employed with SEAD in mind.

Such a UAV would be absolutely useless in any full-scale war against anyone that knows what they're doing. If you managed to supress all of the enemy's airforce and air-defenses, then fine you are fighting against some muppet-country and have already won anyway. But for any sort of conventional wars involving Russia against someone - it just won't be employed.

[Flamming_Python]

Why all these conflicts don't count for you?

Sure, the ADs improve but SEADs capabilities improve too.

Because these are 3rd world countries with no viable air-defense (nothing is newer 40 years); they were blasted to sh!t with overwhelming firepower by a country with a military 100x their power and that was that.

Any sort of modern or semi-modern air-defense doctrine calls for a multi-layered air-defense system, with redundant systems, some individual vehicles capable of operating independently, mobile systems capable of moving around and firing frequently, resistance to jamming, systems to fool anti-radiation missiles, etc...

When I see such a system defeated by SEAD, then I'll rethink.

[KoTeMoRe]

There is nothing 'desisting' about it. If your definition of victory is destroying the whole country and annihilating its population, then just lobbing some nukes will do the trick. But if you have different objectives, employing all your firepower is counter-productive - hence why its not done.

There is, there were never enough troops in Afghanistan to begin with. NEVER. So this has nothing to do with defining victory. You could use your conventional forces to their fullest extent in order to *win*. That is by definition half arsing the deal.

[Flamming_Python]

There is, there were never enough troops in Afghanistan to begin with. NEVER. So this has nothing to do with defining victory. You could use your conventional forces to their fullest extent in order to *win*. That is by definition half arsing the deal.

There aren't enough troops in Afghanistan right now to win it and it seems that the political will is fading too. If they commited to being there for another 10 years at least I think victory would be realistic. And by victory I mean the setting up of a stable government and the start of economic development. Not killing everyone and everything.

[Camera]

Because these are 3rd world countries with no viable air-defense; they were blasted to sh!t with overwhelming firepower by a country with a military 100x their size and that was that.

They were equipped with USSR/Russia made ADs and were trained by USSR/Russian instructors. So, even if they were inferior in size and lacked some technologies that Russia kept for herself, each of them was representative of USSR/Russia's capabilities at the time.

[Raden5]

They have been employed highly effectively to terrorise the irregular and militia forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Israel's conflicts. Past the direct effect in terms of destruction of the enemy and gaining intelligence, I think the threat of a UAV silently showing up and lobbing a missile out of the blue without warning has a very powerful effect in terms of demoralisation and bringing strain on the enemy.

Once again I ask - give an example of at least "improvement of an operative situation" (about a victory - I am silent). Messages "we killed 10 (100, 1000, 100000000) militants" - aren't necessary.

[KoTeMoRe]

There aren't enough troops in Afghanistan right now to win it and it seems that the political will is fading too. If they commited to being there for another 10 years at least I think victory would be realistic. And by victory I mean the setting up of a stable government and the start of economic development. Not killing everyone and everything.

Thank you for aknowledging my point. Political will, superseeds your capacity to wage war. Which was the main point of the argument. Have a nice evening.

[Camera]

Once again I ask - give an example of at least "improvement of an operative situation" (about a victory - I am silent). Messages "we killed 10 (100, 1000, 100000000) militants" - aren't necessary.

Google 1982 War in which UAVs were employed and see what happened to the Syrian ADs.

[Raden5]

Google 1982 War in which UAVs were employed and see what happened to the Syrian ADs.

And where is the "improvement of the operational situation Israel-Syria"? Syrians are now friends of Israel? Or do you not understand my question?

[Camera]

The difference is basically political, We dont have political sovereignty, they have, a lot.

In counter terror, yes.
But I have the impression that the doctrine is increasingly extended to full scale war. I doubt the IAF plans to use any dumb bombs in significant quantities in future conflicts. Even the artillery evolves towards precision shells, precision rockets and missiles. This approach is probably more effective at all levels, including from a financial POV, to continue on this path instead of employing tons and tons of statistical munitions.

[Camera]

And where is the "improvement of the operational situation Israel-Syria"? Syrians are now friends of Israel? Or do you not understand my question?

If your question is political or philosophical, it is irrelevant to the discussion and is out of topic.

[Raden5]

If your question is political or philosophical, it is irrelevant to the discussion and is out of topic.

If I correctly understand - my question remains unanswered.
All "victory" UAV - the solution of the small tactical tasks, which absolutely are not influencing a situation as a whole.

[EITAN88]

If I correctly understand - my question remains unanswered.
All "victory" UAV - the solution of the small tactical tasks, which absolutely are not influencing a situation as a whole.

UAVs failed to create peace in the Middle East and are thus no good? I fail to follow your logic.

[Camera]

If I correctly understand - my question remains unanswered.
All "victory" UAV - the solution of the small tactical tasks, which absolutely are not influencing a situation as a whole.

In the regional balance it was a victory. It was the last time Syria dared to confront the IDF even though, from her POV, Israel occupies Syria's Golan.

[Climber]

In counter terror, yes.
But I have the impression that the doctrine is increasingly extended to full scale war. I doubt the IAF plans to use any dumb bombs in significant quantities in future conflicts. Even the artillery evolves towards precision shells, precision rockets and missiles. This approach is probably more effective at all levels, including from a financial POV, to continue on this path instead of employing tons and tons of statistical munitions.

We dont have political sovereign in any kind of conflict. Hence we are always in a hurry to achieve objectives before a ceasefire is imposed. You know what I am talking about. Thats exactly the reason we need everything smart, we don't have time, time is the uttermost luxury in war, and its political.