In the event of a large-scale war between two modern armies, how quickly would both sides run out of the ultra expensive ultra modern equipment and resort to cheaper equipment?
I.E Eurofighters -> F-16s (or cheaper)
>>30214308
Well large scale war between 2 major up to date country's would be a fight between who would blink first.
As always the attacker will have the disadvantage unless they surprise their rival. Which with modern tech and spy hardware it will be very very hard to mount a surprise attack with large enough force that it would make a difference.
In order for a surprise attack to happen, the opposing country would have no reason to believe they would be betrayed and would leave their army's at home instead of at the border.
From which the attacking force would focus on destroying or capturing their equipment. Forcing the defending force into a guerilla war with limited and out-dated equipment and supplies.
The defending force would have to start cutting off supply lines and destroying bridges/roads to slow down enemy movement to even stand a chance.
Hiding in the woods would do you no good seeing as thermal optics can point you out without a problem. Meaning most fights would be in the cities close to civilians resulting in civilian casualty's.
The offensive force would see such acts as terrorism and most likely use it as an excuse to bring in more supply's and support for their cause.
All in all it would take only a matter of weeks before the modern tech gets wiped out. Making any form of real resistance futile and just seen as pointless death.
You can't just win with an army, you need support of your people to.
>>30214308
I have always questioned that myself...
Other fantasy I have is planes become piss-easy to hack at a distance and we have to resort to modernized prop fighters.
>>30215848
That's why they still need an analog switch to arm the weapons on even the most digital of fighters and drones. You cannot hack arm and fire from any modern aircraft without being there to flip the switch.
It's a good thing that most generals are paranoid.
>>30214308
You won't have anything other than what you have right now. The age of massive production during wars is dead and gone.
>>30214308
OP, you're proof there's such a thing as a wrong question. Why?
1. They'll run out fast.
2. Whoever runs out first loses.
3. That is why they will be unable to resort to cheaper equipment.
4. Hence the saying "fight what you bring" and the existence of modern MIC. The WW2 paradigm of mass-produced statistical weaponry killed itself through producing the rockets, computers, radios, and jet engines that rendered it obsolete.
>>30215848
>hacking
What is formal verification? It's a tedious, computationally intensive process that won't be used en masse until a revolution in machine learning...but it's still doable enough that major military programs and space infrastructure tend to use it, at least at a higher level. tl;dr mathematically proven immune to hax kthxbye.
>>30214308
>In the event of a large-scale war between two modern armies, how quickly would both sides run out of the ultra expensive ultra modern equipment and resort to cheaper equipment?
That was a large part of the reason for Soviet export models. Cheaper, quicker to make, and a touch less sensitive in the supplies lines for manufacture.
Having said that your example is a bad because it is on the subject of down grading to a whole different type of fighter. The time it would take for a modern aircraft to retool that task means that it likely would be a non option for wartime. Those months would be better used on making more of what ever said factory is tooled for. It is likely that some of the parts may be down graded though.
>>30217099
What about reactivating all those F-4s and M60s they have sitting around in the desert? And Same with the Russians and the lots full of old T-55s and shit. Surely in a large conventional conflict it'd be easier to reactivate mothballed equipment than making mew monkey models?
>>30219780
F-4s? Reasonable. But if we have to reactivate the M60s, something has gone wrong as I doubt they'd fare any better against whatever weapon just took out our 5000 Abrams.
>>30222405
>whatever weapon just took out our 5000 Abrams.
Five bucks says I can do it with ten marines and a crate of whisky.
In case of Total War, you care less about the finesse of your troops and more about the ability to replace your loses as quickly as possible. Conscript or elite, you die the same in the face of an artillery shell.
>>30222434
>ten marines and a crate of whisky.
sounds like a lot of buttsekz without any Abrams getting in on any of it.
>>30215848
Why would you resort to prop fighters? Why not just resort to jets that aren't fly-by-wire computer controlled?
>>30214308
It would rapidly degrade to an infantry fight because you can put 100 MANPADS in the hands of soldiers or irregulars a lot cheaper than you can build even an F-16. You can supply 100 ATGM's for a lot less than the cost of any MBT.
If they expended the big boy hardware, the only options would be to go nuclear or do exactly what we see now in the middle east. Irregular strikes of opportunity and a lot of sitting on your thumbs.
>>30222405
The idea is that whatever took out 2000 abrams also suffered a ton of losses in return, and whatever the enemy has left is bad enough that M60's can still do the work.
you are overlooking the fact that our military industrial university complex would have the biggest collective chubby in the history of arms sales and would start churning out the coolest shit
a surgeon will always tell you the answer is surgery.
a psychiatrist will always tell you the answer is drugs and psychotherapy.
the war machine will always tell you the answer is the next great weapon
picture unrelated to post content
>>30223177
>military industrial university complex
no such thing exists
