>Air superiority means nothing when the opposing side has meat for the meat grinder and it's widely spread out.
Western attack helicopters are just one prong in the meat grinder that would grind up enemy infantry formations and entrenchments far quicker than they can be replenished.
NATO vs Russia in a conventional war is basically the West hitting the delete button. Nuclear blackmail is about the only thing sparing Russian forces from that fate.
A war with China is more of a defensive situation. If large-scale infantry combat even had the opportunity to take place I'd be surprised.
That said it's always prudent to plan for the worst contingencies however remote.
Well I hope they're better than the Russian attack helicopters. They lasted ... I want to say about 3 weeks.
What's the plan, btw, if the west does not have air superiority due to Russians, or Iranians, having drones, and the west running out of smart rockets before they run out of drones, and the denial of communications works about as well for the West as it worked for Russia? (meaning, drone communications can be disrupted at 5 meters, which means the drone explodes 10 cm from your ass as opposed to directly in your face)
>Well I hope they're better than the Russian attack helicopters. They lasted ... I want to say about 3 weeks.
NATO forces are very, very good at combined arms actions in conventional wars. Assets aren't used unless there's a fairly high assurance of surviving and accomplishing the mission.
>What's the plan, btw ...
Western military planners have been watching the Ukraine conflict closely and are aware of the threat that cheap commercial drones pose, seeing as they're partly responsible for the phenomenon.
>meaning, drone communications can be disrupted at 5 meters, which means the drone explodes 10 cm from your ass as opposed to directly in your face)
The US in particular excels at dominating the EM spectrum. I wouldn't be surprised if enemy drones wholesale fall out of the sky en masse or are otherwise rendered totally ineffective.
> NATO forces are very, very good at combined arms actions in conventional wars. Assets aren't used unless there's a fairly high assurance of surviving and accomplishing the mission
And how likely are NATO forces to run out of combined arms ammo after 2 weeks?
Western attack helicopters are just one prong in the meat grinder that would grind up enemy infantry formations and entrenchments far quicker than they can be replenished.
NATO vs Russia in a conventional war is basically the West hitting the delete button. Nuclear blackmail is about the only thing sparing Russian forces from that fate.
A war with China is more of a defensive situation. If large-scale infantry combat even had the opportunity to take place I'd be surprised.
That said it's always prudent to plan for the worst contingencies however remote.