The United States has launched serial production of the JDAM LR jet-powered bomb.

The GBU-75 Joint Direct Attack Munition Long Range (JDAM LR) precision-guided munition program, jointly implemented by the U.S. Air Force and Navy, has been cleared to begin serial production. The Pentagon has awarded Boeing a contract to produce the BSU-111/B munition delivery units for the U.S. Navy, which will enable the American aviation strike at significant distances.

The JDAM LR is claimed to have a range of over 300 nautical miles (556 km) and can carry a 226 kg (500 lb) warhead. The JDAM LR is an evolution of the classic JDAM, but with a fundamentally different concept: its range is increased several-fold thanks to a new glide module and improved navigation. This means that US Air Force and Navy aircraft can carry out strikes without entering the kill zone. Defense enemy, including modern medium-range systems.

The launch of serial production of the JDAM LR also fits into the Pentagon's strategy of creating relatively inexpensive, mass-produced, and long-range weapons. While the cost of cruise missiles missiles While the cost of a JDAM LR missile ranges from $1 million to $3 million per unit, experts estimate that the JDAM LR could cost between $80 and $120. This is especially important in the context of a potential conflict with China, where the US is preparing for the need for massive strikes against infrastructure, airfields, warehouses, and ships.

Since JDAM LR was developed for two branches of the armed forces at once – the Air Force and the Navy, this means the unification of these munitions for the F-35, F-15EX, F-16 fighters, F/A-18E/F carrier-based aircraft, strike aircraft drones MQ-25 and MQ-9, as well as the advanced NGAD and F/A-XX platforms.

Comments

[rocket757]

Still, talking about the dominance of minke whale aviation would be a stretch.
Modern air defense systems, if they exist in sufficient quantity, limit the enemy's use of aircraft, according to the classic scheme... Ammunition must be thrown from a distance and only those that can reach enemy positions and targets by gliding or their own propulsion system...

[Evil eye]

What if we first deliberately knock out the air defense, for example?

[rocket757]

And how may I ask?
Modern air defense systems are a diverse bunch, compact, mobile, and can even be distributed across the landscape, controlled from a single coordinating center that doesn't make itself known or distinguish itself in any way.
In general, it all depends on... in general, with enough money, resources, and a technical base, it is possible to create an air defense system that will be a serious obstacle, a problem for manned aviation.
It's no wonder everyone's so concerned about the development of UAVs.... This is truly a problem for those against whom they are being used intensively...
Well, time will tell what, who and how it will work out.
Personal opinion from the couch... well, so-so, fortune-telling, practically.

[Evil eye]

The same as before, starting with Vietnam, for example, and to this day (in Iran, for example).
Specifically, by destroying targets ranging from larger and longer-range to smaller and shorter-range. Because, for example, "compact, mobile, and distributed" doesn't have a long range (if it's a SAM) or high sensitivity (if it's a radar). This means that by destroying the most powerful air defense units, it's possible to fly unhindered at high altitudes and engage even more aircraft in subsequent strikes.
And the tactics are generally open. For example, one air group, surrounded by decoys and ELINT aircraft, launches an attack, while another locates the air defense crews and attacks them.

You're playing as the Air Defense Force. What countermeasures do you propose?

[rocket757]

Yes, just like in Vietnam... despite all the efforts and power of the striped whales, they left because they LOST.
To get a better understanding, read the journalism about how it really was... everything has been described and told many times long ago and is no secret to anyone...
Stories from specific participants in the events are interesting, but they don't reveal everything... so, only READING, from different angles and from different perspectives, will be more accurate...
My personal opinion, from the couch... an integrated approach is the most correct and reliable!!!
Moreover, anyone who does exactly this has every chance of greatly surprising their opponent, perhaps even radically...
And again, I'll clarify... my personal, armchair opinion is... armchair opinion is...
For me it was all a long time ago... too long ago.

[Evil eye]

>> because we LOST

That's not why we lost. It's not because we couldn't use air power. It's just that at a certain point, the enemy either has to surrender, or infantry must be deployed, or weapons of mass destruction must be used, with all the attendant reputational losses. Because air power can bomb, it can spray napalm, but it can't control territory. That's what infantry is for.
The infantry lost. But, as is often the case in guerrilla warfare, the infantry didn't lose on its own, but because the stronger adversary (the United States) was more sensitive to losses and had nothing politically to offer the North Vietnamese to motivate them to negotiate. Iran is going down the same path. Planes bomb, but what do you do next?

[rocket757]

The result is, you lose/win... and it doesn't matter how or why.
There are also intermediate states, but this is not the case.
By the way, planes throw ammunition from a distance and this is not at all what could be done if they could throw it everywhere, always and however they wanted.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

In Iran, they're going down the same road. Planes are bombing, but what's next?

In Iran, it was the US air force that lost. It was unable to suppress Iranian missiles and drones, which prevented aircraft from operating from nearby bases and aircraft carriers from approaching close. As a result, air strikes from Jordan with a couple of bombs on their slings were only marginally effective.

[Evil eye]

How do you envision "suppressing missiles and drones" with aircraft? More precisely, with jet aircraft? This should be handled by ground forces and their drones.

Raids from Jordan with a couple of bombs on the sling - not very effective

Let's take a closer look at your thesis. You believe the whole problem is that the planes fly "from far away" and lack sufficient combat payload.
Let's say.
Let's assume that planes were taking off literally from the other side of the strait, or that aircraft carriers were approaching so that they would be visible from the shore, or that strategic bombers with a full load were used.
Question.
1) How would this affect Iran's ability to launch drones?
2) What would this actually achieve?

I'm saying that at a certain point, either the air force must use WMD, or the army must engage. Because even if "strategists" were to raze residential areas and all major structures to dust and rain napalm down from above, that alone wouldn't necessarily force Iran to surrender. Neither the Vietnamese, nor the Germans, nor the Japanese surrendered to air raids on their own.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

How do you imagine "suppression of missiles and drones" by aviation?

Destruction of launchers immediately after their detection.
The US has announced the ability to detect a missile launch from an F-35 at a distance of 1200 km.
https://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/70836/

How would this affect Iran's ability to launch drones?

The drones would have been destroyed during launch preparations, or the launchers and crew immediately after launch.

What would this actually achieve?

The ability to conduct local ground operations. This means aircraft can hover over the area 24/7, supporting the landing of, for example, a company of marines assaulting an underground missile base or a nuclear facility.

Quote from Evil Eye

either the army must use weapons of mass destruction, or it must go into battle

The US didn't even think about either one.
IMHO, the operation should have gone as I described above. This is exactly what was practiced in Venezuela.
And the landing near Isfahan was precisely an attempt to seize a nuclear facility, not to rescue a pilot. An attempt that failed due to excessive losses and demonstrated the futility of such operations.

[Evil eye]

Destruction of launchers immediately after their detection.
The US has announced the ability to detect a missile launch from an F-35 at a distance of 1200 km.

Please reread your article more carefully, about ballistic missiles. Their launch seems to be slightly different in terms of visibility than the launch of plastic airplanes.

But even if the F-35 could spot every van carrying a plastic plane in the bushes from that distance, no one would waste ammunition capable of striking from that distance. Not to mention that a subsonic missile would fly for over an hour, by which time the Iranians would be gone without a trace. So what? Hit them with hypersonic missiles?
But that's not all. Even if jets could fly freely over the battlefield, they would have little opportunity to fire their launchers across the entire battlefield. Jets are expensive to operate, they can't stay in the air for very long, and they require maintenance breaks. It would certainly be a beautiful picture—hordes of stealthy fighters flying from horizon to horizon, destroying everything in sight... However, onboard ammunition is also limited.
In general, for such tricks we need other aircraft and, again, interaction with ground forces.

The drones would have been destroyed as they were being prepared for launch.

Once again, you're citing an article on detecting ballistic missiles using their heat signatures. Using radar and IR sensors. How can radar and IR sensors help track all those launch-like contraptions across enemy territory and understand where exactly a drone is being prepared for launch and where it isn't?
You seem to be confusing a supersonic aircraft and a reconnaissance drone.

Those. aviation hangs over the area 24/7

The problem is that airplanes can't fly 24/7 because they're airplanes, not airships. And ensuring constant rotation isn't as easy as you might think, because airplanes require maintenance between flights.

This is exactly what was worked out in Venezuela.

You're getting something mixed up. There wasn't really any fighting in Venezuela, just a raid and the kidnapping of the head of state.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

Please reread your article more carefully, it's about ballistic missiles.

I reread it. We had a conversation about "suppression of missiles and drones" by aircraftSo my answer is on topic.

see every van with a plastic airplane in the bushes

I agree, it's hard to see a drone until it takes off. But a drone's takeoff is clearly visible from an airplane.

I won't even mention that a subsonic missile will fly for more than an hour.

To prevent a missile from flying for an hour, we need to keep aircraft in the air over all enemy territory. Then a missile from the nearest aircraft will arrive in a couple of minutes...

They are expensive to operate and cannot remain in the air for very long, requiring maintenance breaks.

In general, for such tricks you need other planes

So the US created an expensive air force that was therefore incapable of winning the war?
Did I understand you correctly?

understand where exactly the drone is being prepared for launch

Once the drone takes off, everything becomes clear.

And constant rotation is not so easy to ensure

Why then did the US build thousands of planes?

there was a raid and the kidnapping of the head of state

Replace "kidnapping the head of state" with "destroying a nuclear facility" and it will be clearer. It's about the principle itself: deploy troops, do the job, and then retrieve them. With the forces the US had against Iran, this was the only tactic possible.

[Evil eye]

We had a conversation about "suppressing missiles and drones."

Well, let's say we also take tactical ballistic missiles into account. What difference does that make? Let's say you (from an airplane) detect a missile launch from 1200 km away. What can you attack it with? For example, there's the long-range JASSM missile, of which fighter jets can carry two. And the F-15E carries three. Only their warheads are high-explosive, not cluster munitions. You fire two or three times and then head home.
There are also Brimstone missiles, they're designed to destroy vehicles, and you can get more of them (up to six), but their range is limited to 60 km. What do you suggest using?

The drone's takeoff is clearly visible from the plane.

I don't argue that it's a drone. can Be visible from an aircraft, even from a great distance, but only in the best cases. What does "visible" mean? It doesn't leave a significant heat signature, and it's barely noticeable to radar. Optics, let's say, might detect it. But even without taking into account enemy tactics (meaning, let's say, the Iranians don't use any decoys, smoke screens, etc.), the aircraft will be hampered, at a minimum, by terrain, vegetation, weather conditions, buildings... And the enemy can take all of this into account—it's not quantum mechanics. But you want the aircraft not just to see the drone, but to detect it immediately after launch. And who's going to do that anyway? Fighters usually only have one pilot, and they have enough work to do than scan hundreds of square kilometers looking for launch pads. And I doubt the electronics have the performance and speed for that. And optics aren't limitless: you can only view a large area with low magnification, or vice versa.

To prevent a missile from flying for an hour, it is necessary to keep aircraft in the air over the entire enemy territory.

This is fantastic, we have airplanes, not flying saucers.

So the US created an expensive air force that was therefore incapable of winning the war?
Did I understand you correctly?

To some extent, yes. Modern technology is more complex and, naturally, more expensive than older aircraft, and it's designed for different missions. Only 4000 B-29s were produced in its time, five times fewer B-52s, and about a hundred B-1s. That's why there aren't any horizon-to-horizon air armadas anymore.
But "cheap aviation" by itself is of little use in today's conditions. And carpet bombing is no longer fashionable.
Cheap air power could help, but only in conjunction with ground forces. And air power alone cannot win any war against a capable adversary.

Why then did the US build thousands of planes?

Clearly not to deploy them all in a single operation. They have bases all over the world. And what thousands? The US has no more than 2 fighter jets in service.

there was a raid and the kidnapping of the head of state

Replace "kidnapping the head of state" with "destroying a nuclear facility" and it will be clearer. It's about the principle itself: deploy troops, do the job, and then retrieve them. With the forces the US had against Iran, this was the only tactic possible.
A nuclear facility is a fortified underground structure, and the president is a leather bag.

[rytik32]

Let's say you (from an airplane) detected a missile launch from a distance of 1200 km

Aircraft patrolling the Persian Gulf will have all of Iran within 1200 km. That's not what I was talking about above... That aircraft should be patrolling over enemy territory, not just somewhere 1200 km away.

invisible to radar

Drones are visible to radar. Radar is what currently detects them in the vast majority of cases.

Fighters usually have only one pilot.

There are F-15E and F/A-18D

It is fantastic

This was the reality of World War II. Groups of bombers and attack aircraft, taking turns, continuously suppressed enemy artillery to ensure a breakthrough.

It is impossible to win any war against a sane enemy with aviation alone.

Yugoslavia was won

Quote from Evil Eye

Clearly not to use them all in one operation.

Let's assume that one strike aircraft controls a 400 x 400 km "square." Then, to control all of Iran, 10 aircraft would need to be in the air at any one time. Let's say another 10 are flying there or back at the same time. 20 are undergoing pre-flight preparation, and 30 are undergoing maintenance or repairs.
You don't need that many planes, do you?
I also have AWACS aircraft, Reaper UAVs... etc. etc.

the president is a leather bag

...which can also hide in a fortified underground structure

[Evil eye]

aircraft must be on duty over enemy territory

This could work against an enemy with no air defense systems other than man-portable ones, or any long-range weapons. Against guerrillas and rebels, in other words. It might even be possible to use cargo planes and gunships instead of combat aircraft. But in such situations, other problems arise, such as civilian casualties.

Drones are visible to radar. Radar is what currently detects them in the vast majority of cases.

The question is at what moment and from what distance.

There are F-15E and F/A-18D

There are fewer of them... But that's not the main thing.

This was the reality of World War II. Groups of bombers and attack aircraft, taking turns, continuously suppressed enemy artillery to ensure a breakthrough.

Ensure a breakthrough. That's what you wrote yourself. We need to cooperate with the ground forces. Otherwise, the effect will only be temporary. And yes, I'll say it again: in WWII, equipment was cheaper, it had less high technology, the engines were more efficient, and most importantly, the enemy (the Germans) screwed up the fight against the Anglo-Saxon air force. And their long-range weapons (the V-8) had an accuracy of "+/- London," so they could only have hit the airfield by pure chance. It's a paradox, but the Iranians are now stronger in this regard than the Germans were back then, adjusted for their overall level of progress.

Yugoslavia was won

Yugoslavia was a fifth smaller in territory and population, and couldn't threaten the world's most important transportation bottleneck. Ultimately, the Yugoslavs made peace, but what if they hadn't?

Let's assume that one strike aircraft controls a 400 x 400 km "square." Then, to control all of Iran, 10 aircraft would need to be in the air at the same time.

The problem is that, in the complete absence of countermeasures from the ground (such as anti-aircraft missiles firing at individual aircraft), a single aircraft in a 400 x 400 km area would be able to launch two JASSM missiles and that's it. Then it would fly back to base. The economic damage to the Americans would simply come from aircraft wear and tear.
...which can also hide in a fortified underground structure
Well, this president wasn't hiding, unlike the Iranian nuclear plants.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

This could work against an enemy that has no air defense systems at all, other than man-portable ones, and no long-range weapons.

So we have what we have: air defense + drones and ballistic missiles defeated even the most modern aviation

[Evil eye]

If for you "the damage is huge, but we're holding on for now" means "we won," then yes.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

the damage is enormous

The winner in a war was never judged by the damage.
The result of the war now is that Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz.

[Evil eye]

1) What do you mean "took control"? Yankee warships can enter and exit there freely. It's another matter that you can't assign a destroyer to every tanker.
But what does aviation have to do with this? Planes certainly can't be attached to tankers.
For decades, the Iranians have been openly stating that they would close the strait if necessary. And their actions were clear from the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea. The difficulties of detecting and intercepting drones and missiles were also evident, both from what's happening in Ukraine and from the older incident with the Iraqi Scud missile launches. This demonstrates critical overconfidence and an overestimation of one's own strength, as well as an underestimation of the enemy.
And not just in military terms, but also in humanitarian ones. For decades, the Yankees have been making films about Evil Overlords, who, once killed (or their Ring of Omnipotence destroyed), immediately collapse into ruin and the orcish army scatters. And it seems they've come to believe it themselves. Just as they believe that the "common people," of course, are only too eager to overthrow the "dictatorship" and embrace Western values, jeans, and chewing gum. And then, after the death of "Sauron" and the "chief Nazgul," the "orcs" simply promoted the next-highest "Nazgul and orcs" and continued the fight (I'm talking about how the situation should look from the perspective of the average Westerner). And for some reason, the bombings only made the people angrier and more united. So what to do? Where are the plans for occupying Mordor? We kind of expected to get to the gate and win. Especially since we had experience with Yugoslavia, Libya, and other places where we somehow got by without a ground invasion. You get used to good things quickly.
The American Air Force can certainly be blamed for its obsession with expensive wonder weapons and its failure to provide for such a contingency. But this isn't just a Western problem. The Americans themselves have been dealing with this for decades. Here's an old article on the topic (and it doesn't mention drones, only guerrillas).
https://topwar.ru/155817-sabotazh-vvs-ssha-protiv-idei-legkogo-shturmovika.html
2) Judging by your words, you are firmly convinced that “air defense, ballistics and drones defeat expensive aircraft”, am I right?
Would you propose the same strategy to our military leaders?

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

Yankee warships can enter and leave there freely.

Sometimes it's free, sometimes it's under attack from drones and missiles...

What does it mean to "take control"?

Passing without an agreement with Iran is fraught with damage.

I agree with much of what you wrote above.

that "air defense, ballistics and drones beat expensive aircraft", am I right?

Yes, but with one condition: in addition to air defense, drones, and ballistics, reconnaissance is needed, preferably satellite reconnaissance.

Quote from Evil Eye

Would you propose the same strategy to our military leaders?

They're using almost the same tactics against us as Iran. That's why we've also removed our aircraft from the airfields closest to the LBS. Or we're keeping them in a holding facility, like in Crimea.

[Evil eye]

Sometimes it's free, sometimes it's under attack from drones and missiles...

They are under attack, but the ships usually shoot them down.

Passing without an agreement with Iran is fraught with damage.

Like, could the Iranians really melt everything down? Why aren't they doing it? What's the point of the agreement?

They are using almost the same things against us that Iran is using.

So what's the conclusion? I can tell you: we need different aircraft. You think it's all about satellite reconnaissance. But there's no way we can provide our forces with more satellite reconnaissance than the enemy receives.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

Like, the Iranians could actually melt everything down? Why don't they?

Iran sometimes didn't attack, sometimes it attacked US ships. It didn't attack, apparently so as not to violate the ceasefire in effect at the time.

Quote from Evil Eye

I can say: we need other planes

I don't see how aircraft could change the situation. But that, of course, doesn't eliminate aviation. Aircraft will be needed, and they will have their purposes.
IMHO, the key to victory now will be the presence of massive but accurate drones or missiles.

[Comet_1]

Quote from Evil Eye

Just like before, starting with Vietnam,

American aviation losses in Vietnam amounted to 3706 aircraft and 4866 helicopters (published in the USA in August 1973).

[Evil eye]

So what? They did fly, after all. But now air defense losses are in the single digits.

[rytik32]

Quote from Evil Eye

And now losses from air defense (in the air) are counted in units

Naturally, the planes don't rush into trouble. It's the same story in the North-East.

[Comet_1]

Quote from Evil Eye

So what? They did fly.

It depends on where and when. There were times and places when we didn't fly.

[Mi Ha El]

Everything is being tailored to a long-range war that doesn't involve US or NATO territory. And in terms of the number of launch vehicles, the potential adversary outnumbers Russia by 8-10 times. Which isn't a big deal. They'll pound the enemy from afar. They're not fools; they'll multiply their gains and advantages exponentially. It's cheap and easy, and they have ample production bases.

[SAG]

And in terms of the number of carriers, the potential enemy exceeds Russia's capabilities by 8-10 times.

This raises two questions: who do you mean by a potential enemy and what specific carriers of what?

[alexboguslavski]

Sometimes it's helpful to read before bed. Anything is better than watching Ural dumplings.

I believe the leaks about old Donny's anger at war correspondent and US Secretary of War Pete Heggseth over the catastrophic depletion of precision-guided weapons (including SAMs) will inevitably lead to a stricter information rationing, a tightening of the screws on the American media, and the creation of a "Department of Communications and Mass Information" at the Pentagon. A two- or three-star general should be appointed there to highlight American victories in the Middle East every day.

"236 strikes were carried out, 279 Persian militants and mercenaries from Yemen were killed." "The American fleet was able to advance 4 miles into the Strait of Hormuz, four Iranian cruisers and eight submarines were destroyed, and the Aegis system shot down three aircraft and 26 IRGC drones."

In general, it's certainly funny to watch Donnie, who seems to sincerely believe that shells, missiles, bombs, and other weapons can be printed like dollars, or that their production grows like stock market trading.
"Come on, here's my tweet, traders are about to raise Patriot and Tomahawk and we'll have 100500 of them in our account, we can launch an unthinkable strike on Iran, the likes of which have never been seen since World War II."

Iran, incidentally, now has a real chance not only to win—it has already done so—but also to humiliate the decrepit global hegemon as much as possible. Such a depletion of weapons threatens the Middle Eastern vassals with annihilation in the event of a new escalation; the Gulf monarchies will simply have no means of protecting their vulnerable areas from Iranian missiles and drones; Washington will only protect Israel, withdrawing its umbrella from the Persian Gulf.

[Pivot]

Well, we need to work in this direction too; we needed bombs like these yesterday.

[Roman_Vasilyevich]

...This is especially important in the context of a possible conflict with China, where the US is preparing for the need for massive strikes on infrastructure, airfields, warehouses and ships.

Well, unless China starts a conflict first, and it won't do that...
And the US is running out of missiles, what kind of aggressor is it?!
The war with Iran is a case in point, and he seamlessly transitioned from armed conflict to manipulating oil prices. He's a pro at this, but he got carried away, to Netanyahu's misfortune...

[Andriuha077]

Direct analogues: UMBP-5R (Russia): The closest and most widely used analogue. It is a universal, inter-service, 250 kg caliber glide munition. The UMBP-5R version is equipped with a compact, small-sized turbojet engine (specifically, commercial Chinese-made Swiwin SW800Pro-Y engines).

Expected TDI-J85 Price Range: Defense publications such as The War Zone estimate the cost of this turbojet engine to be between $25,000 and $50,000 per unit, subject to large-scale orders.
Chinese hobby turbojet engines with similar thrust (for example, the Swiwin SW1000Pro), which are purchased by civilians at retail, cost around $10,000. The military TDI-J85 is more expensive due to strict quality control, overload protection, and a powerful generator.

Decoy: If the warhead is replaced with an additional fuel tank, the range increases to almost 1300 km, allowing the munition to be used to deceive and deplete enemy air defense systems.

[opuonmed]

The JDAM LR is claimed to have a range of over 300 nautical miles (556 km) while carrying a 226 kg (500 lb) warhead.

Quite a range. And, in theory, tactical nuclear weapons could be placed inside these bombs.

[Cympak]

It can be carried in a backpack or a 152/155 mm shell, but it takes balls of steel and unbending political will to use it for its intended purpose.

[dnestr74]

And it turns out to be a rocket, all in a circle

[Cympak]

Quote: dnestr74

And it turns out to be a rocket, all in a circle

And the result is a cheap missile made from ready-made, standardized modules. Just the way the USAF likes it.

[Evil eye]

It's not really a missile. It's a sort of intermediate between a glide bomb and a missile, both in terms of payload and range. You could consider it a 20th-century flying bomb.

[snow mountain]

The United States has launched serial production of the JDAM LR jet-powered bomb.

It looks like this will revive attack aircraft a bit.

[Cympak]

Quote: Schneeberg

The United States has launched serial production of the JDAM LR jet-powered bomb.

It looks like this will revive attack aircraft a bit.

No, in the USAF it's called Deep Strike.
Attack aircraft lack the speed and altitude to effectively use such bombs.

[Marlin]

The news isn't so good. They'll likely appear near Ukraine soon, with a radius of 550 km.

[Cympak]

Judging by the range, the Americans use a low-resource turbojet engine.

[Kmet]

Unlike the baseline version, which is a glide bomb, the JDAM LR (Joint Direct Attack Munition Long Range) is a cruise missile with its own turbojet engine. What kind of "bomb" is this?

[Evil eye]

If it can only glide even with an engine, then it’s a bomb.

[Mike777]

The US will never get involved in a war with China because of Taiwan, never never, only support like Ukraine

[Mi Ha El]

Quote: SAG

And in terms of the number of carriers, the potential enemy exceeds Russia's capabilities by 8-10 times.

This raises two questions: who do you mean by a potential enemy and what specific carriers of what?

1. USA and NATO
2. The carriers of these bombs.

[Yuras_Belarus]

Bombs, drones, missiles... Why? Settle your neighbors against each other and they'll kill each other with their bare hands. What was the principle of the Romans and Anglo-Saxons? Divida et impera!