What bothers me seeing these pics; wouldn't our satellites pick up on their little 'wargames' with tanks and armed vehicles in an instant? So we can scramble some jets and blow them to smithereens? Seems like they are very out in the open here and they seem to get away with it...Daesh armored brigade exercises in Iraq.
Satellites are not live surveillance assets, they also require highly skilled personal to interrogate the image. This is easy when you know where you're looking, it's no so easy when you're scouring an entire dessert for what is probably a dozen vehicles.
We have ground-scanning airborne radar (both British and American) and some great IR and Optical systems (again British kit is quite good at this), and its probable there's a few CIA satellites that could spot a vehicle from thermal signature, but they all lack that super wide area ability and omnipresence.Well seems i thought our tech was a bit more advanced then
I'm more familiar with aerial detection, but the best range you tend to get with a front line radar is on the order of a few hundred miles under the absolute best conditions. Ground looking radar will probably have shorter range than ones scanning the air, and the velocity of the radar has an impact on performance. It's better to fly slow than fast, which naturally makes it take longer to scan a given area.Well seems i thought our tech was a bit more advanced then
I think it's more of a political issue, actually Western countries are ruled by burocrats that tell us they'll decide everything they have to "in the next meeting", yeah, next meeting, the "next meeting" mantra forever. If they really want to wipe them out, they have everthying they need to do it. Problem is they don't really care.
The focus of many militaries up to the 1990's was the Cold War and fears of it going hot, which would be a large scale traditional nation vs nation war. This is a very different thing from counter insurgency, and using tools designed for the former to fight the latter is expensive and inefficient. It's one of the reasons why the arguments around the retirement of the A-10 is so heated. It's pretty outdated and vulnerable with regards to its original task, but it performs well as a COIN aircraft. It's scheduled to be replaced by the F-35. While that plane has many advantages over the A-10, those advantages are only going to be readily apparent against a large and highly advanced force.
This has been going on with varying intensity since the 80's. You can certainly do damage with airstrikes, but it hasn't yet done anything decisive. They are also expensive, which is a very real military consideration.
But the consider that up until recently the vast majority of airborne ground attack weapons have been designed to destroy MBT or mass infantry.
Problem is these cowards are hiding in school hospitals but nobody wants to risk their men on a ground campain. I can understand that, so who wants to fight keep bombing instead.
Killing terrorists is pest control. Collateral deaths are the bad side of war. But with this blindness and "forever wait" attitude daesh become a threat for the whole World.
Explained already. Read again.
