Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokoon | Hacker News Reader

That's weird, the stinger is an amazing weapon which allows an infantry to take out an aerial threat, which is quite amazing.

I don't understand why they would not secure the production of that missile, or even replace it with something new.

It's not like they don't have enough money to cover all possible sorts of weapons that can exist.

View on HN

The issue is, American army did not see them anymore entering a war where American infantry needs to take out aerial threats. The army assumed future wars would be killing goat herders carrying AK-47s with drone strikes.

The idea was nobody would. E insane enough in the interconnected global economy to start to "real" war. And thus weapons production focused on anti-terrorism etc.

not exactly. near peer doctrine called for aerial dominance. only recently (last few years) has the US bought back SHORAD. manpads are seen as unnecessary because there’s bigger and better weapons systems for them

Different doctrine. Stinger is useful for LSCO (large scale combat operations) doctrine, but NATO thought it would be COIN doctrine (counter insurgency like in Afghanistan)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency

Are stingers even useful for LSCO?

I get the sense Ukraine us using them as the insurgency rather than the counter-insurgency

turns out things like Stingers/TOW/Javelin are extremely useful in proxy wars, where NATO doesn't want to put boots/planes in the area of operations.

if NATO is so loss averse and doesnt want to risk own soldiers' lives, then NATO/US doctrine should plan for proxy wars - and not blindly assume they will have air superiority everywhere

They DO have air superiority - just not currently used for shorter range weapons, because they're as high in the sky as they possibly can be without being seen or hit by RUS.

US did not have air superiority in proxy wars in Syria nor in Ukraine.

Should the next proxy war happen in LATAM/Africa/ME - I am not sure US would rush to deploy air assets.

For example - Iran/China - would US create no fly zone over these countries?

NATO absolutely has air superiority in Ukraine.

How they choose to exercise that is an exercise for you, the reader, whoever would like - not this comment.

and how did it work out for NATO in Syria?

for different factions of rebels backed by Pentagon/CIA/etc/etc

They all still have their jobs, the companies that sell the weapons are still selling them.

Seems like it went great.

this is very cynical view and skips the US foreign policy failure of Obama in the middle east, and is part of the reason why Trump got elected in the first place.

not even talking about millions of killed/displaced refugees that are now in Europe and all over the middle east, and all the humanitarian disaster that was caused by strategic miscalculation and doctrine mismatch

You're just not in touch with the incentive structures that guide these people's actions.

Their claimed goals and incentives are rarely complete, sometimes not even true!

NATO does not have air superiority in Ukraine. The skies are contested in many areas. Recently Ukraine lost a number of Bradley’s and when a Ka-52 ambushed them in Zaporizhzhia.

If you’re making the point that America and NATO could join the fight sure, but that’s a hypothetical and the reality now is that the skies in Ukraine are contested.

Ukraine is holding territory. They are not fighting like an insurgency.

Stringers are absolutely useful in LSCO. Soviet doctrine made heavy use of MANPADS (man portable air defense systems, of which Stinger counts) when they were planning for LSCO. Basically every army besides the US army (and its allies) makes heavy use of them, and the US army is different because they plan for the US Air Force to be able to clear the skies for them. Soviet doctrine embedded air defence at all levels of their army, from MANPADS to Pantsirs, Buks, and S-300s etc. This goes from man carrier to short/middle/long range.

MANPADs have pretty low ranges. You're mostly shooting helicopters and very low flying planes. Wikipedia claims a maximum range of 11000 feet, but the hot probability at that height is likely quite low.

very low flying planes is the Russian tactic against air defense

The article mentions them looking for a replacement prior to the recent invasion of Ukraine.

Well Poles took Igla, removed soviet electronics, put there new modern electronics and started making Grom, which then got a birth to Piorun. I would assume that Stingers need to go through similar development as electronics from 1970s/1980s will be hard to get or very expensive.

im thinking its doctrine, there simply havent been a need, us marines dont go in without air superiority, what good is a stinger if there are no targets?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com