A buddy of mine was outside the wire around Balad when a C-RAM went off. He described the rain of metal from the self destruct rounds. He wasn't happy. Hurt someone, probably. Kill someone, maybe a chance, and while small, is still a chance. But we probably need to start putting in anti drone systems at all bases, even CONUS.

2 hours ago, fire4effect said:

Phalanx CIWS C-RAM in action at night compilation

Don't the rounds self-destruct after a certain range now for this very reason?

the 20MM rounds are "supposed to self-destruct but not all function correctly. Regardless, you would be raining metal on residential areas.

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Obviously I don’t know and couldn’t post it here if I did. But leading up to the ceasefire it seemed like hits on our stuff were increasing — AWACS, PSAB tankers, THAAD radar array etc.. all open source. And this was after a month of attriting their launchers. Also open source reporting from the Israel and US side that interceptor numbers were getting “critically low.”

I’m not saying the patriot/thaad/sm-3 aren’t super rad systems. I just don’t think we were winning the volume game or ‘exchange ratio’ @ClearedHot alluded to and that was one of the reasons the desire for a ceasefire seemed urgent on our side

So many layers to this and obviously not the forum to discuss in detail. Their success was not as much associated with low inventory of interceptors as it was commander decisions to park aircraft in the way they did, the Chinese entering the fight and providing high quality, near real-time decision intel and a lot of luck. With regard to the exchange ratio, that is more associated with UAS attack vectors not TBMs. That being said, there is work being done on that front as well.

The bigger issue is the American way of war, we are VERY averse to casualties and grown more sensitive through the years.

On September 17, 1862 23,000 Americans died in 12 hours of fighting at the Battle of Antietam.

On September 26, 1918 2,300 Americans died in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.

On October 24, 1944 2,600 were killed during fighting in World War II

On November 27 – December 4, 1950 6,000 Americans were killed in Korea

On January 32, 1968 246 Americans died fighting in Vietnam

During combat operations in Operation Desert Storm 148 Americans died

Since Feb. 28, 13 U.S. service members have been killed in the Iran War, 6 of those in a KC-135 during an accident during a support mission.

Our news cycle is so accelerated and our loss tolerance is low we miss the bigger strategic picture. Over 13,000 DMPIs struck, Iran's Navy is gone, Iran's Air Force is gone, they are forced down to local tactical fighting using IR weapons which are still deadly but have a much smaller impact.

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

the 20MM rounds are "supposed to self-destruct but not all function correctly. Regardless, you would be raining metal on residential areas.

So many layers to this and obviously not the forum to discuss in detail. Their success was not as much associated with low inventory of interceptors as it was commander decisions to park aircraft in the way they did, the Chinese entering the fight and providing high quality, near real-time decision intel and a lot of luck. With regard to the exchange ratio, that is more associated with UAS attack vectors not TBMs. That being said, there is work being done on that front as well.

The bigger issue is the American way of war, we are VERY averse to casualties and grown more sensitive through the years.

On September 17, 1862 23,000 Americans died in 12 hours of fighting at the Battle of Antietam.

On September 26, 1918 2,300 Americans died in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.

On October 24, 1944 2,600 were killed during fighting in World War II

On November 27 – December 4, 1950 6,000 Americans were killed in Korea

On January 32, 1968 246 Americans died fighting in Vietnam

During combat operations in Operation Desert Storm 148 Americans died

Since Feb. 28, 13 U.S. service members have been killed in the Iran War, 6 of those in a KC-135 during an accident during a support mission.

Our news cycle is so accelerated and our loss tolerance is low we miss the bigger strategic picture. Over 13,000 DMPIs struck, Iran's Navy is gone, Iran's Air Force is gone, they are forced down to local tactical fighting using IR weapons which are still deadly but have a much smaller impact.

Well I know we already disagree about this war but to your broader point I would argue our tolerance for casualties is right where it should be.. in inverse proportion to how stupid the conflict is and the amount of lies used to sell it.

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Well I know we already disagree about this war but to your broader point I would argue our tolerance for casualties is right where it should be.. in inverse proportion to how stupid the conflict is and the amount of lies used to sell it.

This is why I will no longer engage with you guys...

It is conservatively estimated that 17% of all US. deaths in Iraq were directly tied to Iran. Since this regime took power THOUSANDS of Americans have died thanks to their sponsorship of terror around the world. JCPOA did NOTHING to stop that, in fact, Obama made $1.7B in cash payments to Iran..I am sure they used it to build schools and education systems for women and homosexuals.

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

This is why I will no longer engage with you guys...

It is conservatively estimated that 17% of all US. deaths in Iraq were directly tied to Iran. Since this regime took power THOUSANDS of Americans have died thanks to their sponsorship of terror around the world. JCPOA did NOTHING to stop that, in fact, Obama made $1.7B in cash payments to Iran..I am sure they used it to build schools and education systems for women and homosexuals.

Mm yes using one pointless boondoggle to justify another. Here’s a prediction: as long as we have troops in the Middle East, they’ll always be targeted periodically and we will inevitably incur casualties. So we’ll never run out of dumb justifications for new interventions

22 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

but they still held strategic military and civilian assets at risk throughout the entire process.

Sure, it’s MCO. The fact is we’ve been so used to GWOT-level risk for 30+ years, so MCO-level risk to infrastructure/our mil assets seems insane. The thing is we’ve actually done incredibly well and the impact has been extremely limited when looked at through an MCO lens.

22 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Speaking of which, keep the sailors who've been deployed for 10 months in your prayers.

For sure. Lots of people, in addition to the Ford, have spent 10+ months deployed over the last year and change. I have some real problems with force apportionment at the operational level for both AD and Guard.

The biggest contributor to that is our total force size. For the guys that weren't born yet: during Desert Storm we had at least one ANG fighter unit in just about every state. In the subsequent no-fly zone patrols, guard units did 30 day deployments and the part timers swapped out half way through. Our CAF is a little over 1/3 the size it was then. Now most ANG units that aren't on the coasts can't even train with other squadrons on a normal basis because they're too far apart for normal training.

On 4/18/2026 at 7:52 AM, Smokin said:

The biggest contributor to that is our total force size. For the guys that weren't born yet: during Desert Storm we had at least one ANG fighter unit in just about every state. In the subsequent no-fly zone patrols, guard units did 30 day deployments and the part timers swapped out half way through. Our CAF is a little over 1/3 the size it was then. Now most ANG units that aren't on the coasts can't even train with other squadrons on a normal basis because they're too far apart for normal training.

Reminds me when I was in SOS and we had the ANG/Reserve briefing. They were going on about how involved they were augmenting the AD force during the Iraq/AFG steady state. They asked , "Isn't that great?"

I guess maybe if they're trying to get those points for retirement or whatever. But, no, I think utilizing these forces like they're AD is hiding real manpower issues, and abusing the folks who signed up for a "less strenuous" but longer reward commitment. Happy for feedback, but that shit bugged the fuck outta me.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by 17D_guy
their -> they're, promise I have a degree

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Reminds me when I was in SOS and we had the ANG/Reserve briefing. They were going on about how involved they were augmenting the AD force during the Iraq/AFG steady state. They asked , "Isn't that great?"

I guess maybe if they're trying to get those points for retirement or whatever. But, no, I think utilizing these forces like their AD is hiding real manpower issues, and abusing the folks who signed up for a "less strenuous" but longer reward commitment. Happy for feedback, but that shit bugged the fuck outta me.

I think I read your vibe and see your point, like a guy always dipping into his emergency savings account to get through the month, is it really money you set aside for a problem or are you really just not budgeting correctly?

I spent more time Guard than AD and saw both sides, good and bad. IIRC, historically about 1/3rd of our (and other Western militaries) are reserve forces, for financial affordability to keep immediate military capability of an appropriate size and your strategic reserve for the big contingency.

Obviously we are past that model and using our Guard/Reserve (ARC Air Reserve Component) beyond the historical concept. But why?

My guess is the total cost of an ARC member and their dependents, all benefits, is enough to deal with the thrash in statuses.

Is this a good way of doing business? Maybe but methinks we should revisit the concept.

Guard leaders are sounding off about problems keeping units viable

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/guard-leaders-congress-air-force-needs-100-new-fighters-a-year/

9 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I think I read your vibe and see your point, like a guy always dipping into his emergency savings account to get through the month, is it really money you set aside for a problem or are you really just not budgeting correctly?

I spent more time Guard than AD and saw both sides, good and bad. IIRC, historically about 1/3rd of our (and other Western militaries) are reserve forces, for financial affordability to keep immediate military capability of an appropriate size and your strategic reserve for the big contingency.

Obviously we are past that model and using our Guard/Reserve (ARC Air Reserve Component) beyond the historical concept. But why?

My guess is the total cost of an ARC member and their dependents, all benefits, is enough to deal with the thrash in statuses.

Is this a good way of doing business? Maybe but methinks we should revisit the concept.

Guard leaders are sounding off about problems keeping units viable

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/guard-leaders-congress-air-force-needs-100-new-fighters-a-year/

I didn't even realize we only had 22 states with ANG units... Holy shit