this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
229 points (96.0% liked)

World News

35969 readers
776 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

According to new reporting from the New York Times, a Houthi surface-to-air (SAM) missile barely missed an American F-35 fifth-generation fighter, the crown jewel of the U.S. fighter inventory. The F-35, participating in Operation Rough Rider against the Houthis, was forced to take evasive action to avoid the missile.

The incident raises questions about the survivability of one of America’s most advanced fighters, and raises concerns over how effective the relatively unsophisticated Houthi air defense system has been at hampering U.S. action.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The Ukranians have been developing their own in-house weapons systems and have had some really big successes with entirelly homegrown weapons systems: it weren't western weapons that made the Black Sea unsafe for the Russian Navy even when docked in home harbours and it weren't western weapons systems that have been blowing up the military and economic infrastructure deep inside Russian territory - Ukranian drones did it.

At the same time, the war on the actual frontline has become drone-heavy and most of the solutions in that domain are made by the Ukranians themselves (not to say that drones alone would win it, not even close).

Ukraine started this war with their pants down and indeed if it weren't for western systems and ammunition they would've lost it long ago, if only because Russia's depth of military resources was 5+ decades worth of Soviet military kit, but at the same time they've been building up their own military production and becoming more and more independent of those, so I wouldn't be so sure that if merelly the US stopped sending weapons and (more importantly) ammo, Ukraine would lose the war, though if the whole West did that would be far more likely.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

it weren't western weapons that made the Black Sea unsafe for the Russian Navy

Not true. What little success they had there was due to British naval drones. Those worked for a while until Russia adapted. Now you hardly ever hear of success anymore.

Ukranian drones did it.

Again, technically not the case. Most of them are Chinese, the Ukrainians just strap explosive shells on them.

the war on the actual frontline has become drone-heavy

Drones play a large and vital role but they have not and cannot replace the role of conventional artillery. In fact the most effective use of drones in this conflict has been as artillery spotters. The reason why Ukraine relies on kamikaze drones to such an asymmetrical extent is because they have little else left by now. It is done out of necessity, not because it is the optimal thing to do.

Further, there is a certain inherent bias in OSINT toward overestimating the impact of drones on the battlefield due to the fact that they come with their own video footage whereas an artillery shell does not film as it flies toward a target.

Ukraine started this war with their pants down

Not really. Ukraine had the largest and best equipped military of any European country except for Russia at the start of this conflict. They were involved in an active conflict since 2014, had tens of thousands of soldiers already deployed and large swathes of the eastern front heavily fortified, and they had been receiving training from NATO for years as well as weapons.

Then they were further pumped full with all remaining Warsaw pact equipment that could be scrounged up (which was actually a very large amount) when the conflict began.

and indeed if it weren't for western systems and ammunition they would've lost it long ago

This is true.

at the same time they've been building up their own military production and becoming more and more independent

Quite the opposite. Ukraine began this war with far more of a military industry than it has now. It lost almost all of it to Russian strikes, and what is left are almost exclusively small scale decentralized production which can only produce small weapons (drones first and foremost) and ammunition but nothing on the scale of tanks, artillery systems, air defense systems, etc.

Ukraine is now more dependent on western supplies than it has ever been, and not just in the military sphere. Its entire government is being kept afloat by US and European money which pays the salaries of virtually everyone in the Ukrainian government. It even imports energy. Functionally Ukraine's economy is dead.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Last I checked this was a land war, so kind of weird to talk about great successes in Black Sea which are also rather questionable given that Russian navy still has dominance there. Meanwhile, the amount of military infrastructure Ukraine manages to blow up is minuscule, especially compared to the amount of infrastructure Russia blows up in Ukraine on regular basis.

The war on the actual frontline is still primarily conducted by artillery which accounts for 80% of casualties. However, even in drone production, Ukraine is far outmatched by Russia which does it on industrial scale.

The idea that Ukraine has been building up military production is frankly nonsensical because Russia is able to strike anywhere in Ukraine with impunity. This precludes Ukraine from having large military factories, and at this point Ukraine even lacks the energy infrastructure to run them because Russia has systematically dismantled it over the past three years.

Finally, aside from having shortages of literally everything, Ukraine is running out of manpower as its army is being attrited by Russia. Even if Ukraine was able to produce weapons domestically at scale, which it cannot, there aren't people left alive to use them.