This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I at least partially agree with your overall conclusion (that the US has a lot of capability to achieve persistent monitoring of the area near Iran's coastline and strike attacks directed from this location) but I have some quibbles with the reasoning you use to get there.
I don't think so, except maybe in terms of personnel (although arguably that's the most important part of a military, but I think that claims that NATO is orders of magnitude better than Russia in troop proficiency, particularly in ground combat, are exaggerated). Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, I would argue that their military was as good as or better than "the EU military" if you're looking at kit and capabilities.
I think this depends on the system being used. I don't think Growlers can interfere with a satellite uplink system unless they are in a very specific geographic location relative to the drone. And (to your point about striking fixed targets) drones using only GPS or other navigation satellites to navigate might not be jammed even if the US has the capability because the US also uses GPS to navigate and/or doesn't want to jam foreign satellite constellations.
I also don't think Growlers are going to run broad-spectrum jamming based on "someone doing something out there." If you're controlling a drone via a mobile cell network, for example, you're not necessarily going to ping as the hostile communications node you are. So there are a lot of ways to get around US EW spectrum suppression.
I'd suggest this is a bit oversimplified. The US moving a bunch of E-2s in theater suggests to me that the E-3 was having a hard time picking up Iranian "one way drones" (cruise missiles), and they assessed the newer AESA radars would be better able to pick them up. Airborne radars have a hard time picking up low-flying small aircraft, particularly at range and there's a risk that the return of a drone will fall under their speed or size gates. Also, keeping an AWACS on station perpetually over each target point is a major commitment.
The US Navy released a pretty good report on the Gettysburg friendly-fire incident that isn't about AWACS per se but it gets into how even AEGIS destroyers with their high-end radars have trouble in certain radar environments. Unironically recommended reading, really fascinating stuff that illuminates what those sort of operations look like on the inside.
More options
Context Copy link