Tuesday, September 16, 2025

It’s Not About One Versus One

Far too often (all the time?) commenters and analysts focus on one-on-one assessments of the weapon systems they are arguing for or against.  The US has more carriers than China.  A Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile can’t be stopped.  This missile has a ten mile greater range than that missile.  This weapon can penetrate that tank’s armor.  And so on.  That’s fine but it completely ignores the big picture.  Where does the weapon system fit into the larger military scheme?  Can it be produced in quantity?  Can it be serviced in the field?  Is it reliable?  And so on.
 
How many times have you heard the argument that if this weapon can beat that ship/plane/tank then that ship/plane/tank is obsolete and useless?
 
One-on-one, the WWII German Tiger tank was nearly unbeatable but that’s not how the war was fought.  Tiger tanks and US Sherman tanks didn’t line up, one against one, in a series of jousts.  The Tiger tank was difficult to produce, lacked numbers, was hard to maintain, hard to repair, and suffered from critical fuel shortages due to Allied attacks on Germany’s raw materials, factories, refineries, etc.  The war against the Tiger tank was fought in many ‘domains’ not just one-on-one.
 
We, as observers and analysts, need to stop the one-on-one thinking that dominates our discussions and begin recognizing and considering the many other factors that make up the larger military picture.
 
Let’s take a look at a current example involving Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian fuel capacity which is impacting the general Russian military effort.
 
Ukraine has intensified its campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, hitting refineries in recent weeks and deepening fuel shortages across the country.[1]
 
About 40% of Ukraine's long-range strike missions this year have focused on refineries, while others have hit storage and pumping facilities. [1]
 
Independent estimates suggest up to 20% of Russia's refining capacity has been disabled, cutting more than 1 million barrels a day of output, mostly gasoline. Refineries that have been hit repeatedly have sustained lasting damage, especially to cracking units that are difficult to replace under Western sanctions. [1]
 
The impact has been felt nationwide. Motorists face fuel shortages, long lines, and record prices. Wholesale gasoline prices have jumped 54% since January, prompting authorities to suspend exports and impose rationing in some regions. [1]

We see, then, that the Russian military effort can be impacted not just by one-on-one weapon contests but by many other factors such as fuel supply – a lesson straight out of WWII (and every other conflict in history!).  No longer can we, as analysts, talk about one-on-one assessments without considering the larger picture and all the other factors that impact and determine a weapon system’s actual usefulness and effectiveness.
 
___________________________
 
On a bit of side note, albeit closely related, here’s a bit of information about Ukraine’s drone effort.
 
The FP-1 long-range "kamikaze" drone, introduced in May, now accounts for about 60% of strikes inside Russia. Produced at an estimated 100 units a day, it carries a 60- to 120-kilogram warhead with a range of up to 1,600 kilometers.
 
Despite a price of about $55,000, it is said to feature advanced guidance software that maintains accuracy under electronic jamming. [1]

This highlights so many lessons we’ve discussed in past posts.  For example, not every weapon has to be bleeding edge, light years ahead technology.  Had the US tried to produce this drone, it would have been 10x the size, 1000x the cost, and been partially ready in a decade or two.  In the non-US procurement world, simple and just plain effective will almost always be sufficient.  Low cost, easy to mass produce, reasonably useful characteristics … this is what effective weapons procurement should look like.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “Russia Faces Gasoline Crisis as Ukrainian Drones Strike”, Sandy Fitzgerald, 5-Sep-2025,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-war/2025/09/05/id/1225208/
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

29 comments:

  1. AnonymousSeptember 16, 2025 at 11:53 AM

    "Had the US tried to produce this drone, it would have been 10x the size, 1000x the cost, and been partially ready in a decade or two."

    But would it not have been enormously more profitable to the manufacturers, and done far more to advance the careers (and the post-retirement prospects) of the officers involved?

    Or have I misunderstood the way the US procurement system works?

    ReplyDelete
  2. G2milSeptember 17, 2025 at 9:56 AM

    Good YouTubers inside Russia report no fuel shortages. Russia exports refined fuel so reductions in production just hurt exports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 17, 2025 at 12:18 PM

      Reduced exports hurt national income which hurts the military. You can't have negatively impacted oil production and not see negative impacts across the economy and government.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 21, 2025 at 11:54 AM

      Reduced exports can reduce national income unless the reduction is offset by reduced imports or an increase in domestic output. It is not a linear relationship.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 30, 2025 at 9:13 AM

      Here is an article further documenting the impact on the Russian military of Ukrainian strikes against oil/power facilities in Russia: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ukraine-strike-russia/2025/09/29/id/1228273/

      Delete
  3. deariemeSeptember 17, 2025 at 9:59 AM

    "the WWII German Tiger tank was nearly unbeatable": depended on the lie of the land. In my father's experience he did well against them in Churchill tanks in the bocage country, which suited the Churchill's merits more than it suited the Tiger's.

    Once out of the bocage the Tiger was a much better tank than the Churchill but in the open fields was vulnerable to the RAF's Typhoon fighter-bombers which attacked using rockets. There are reports of German tank crews being so scared of the Typhoons that they simply "abandoned ship" and ran for their lives. And remember that was in an army that was, in terms of individual soldiers, a better army than the democracies fielded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G2milSeptember 17, 2025 at 11:12 AM

      Fighters learned that blasting the light armor in the rear of the Tiger tank with .50 cal machine gun fire often caused them to catch fire. Sometimes bullets would bounce off the pavement and enter the weak bottom of the tank.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsSeptember 17, 2025 at 12:19 PM

      "in the open fields was vulnerable to the RAF's Typhoon fighter-bombers"

      And you've just proven the premise of the post that combat is a multi-faceted affair!

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 2:56 PM

      Unfortunately, it is China's advantage that they can produce advanced weapons quickly in large quantity due to their huge civilian industry base. Knowledge learned also enable them to advance their military R&D fast. Can Trump's rebuild American manufacturing through tariffs success?

      Delete
    4. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 3:18 PM

      "Unfortunately, it is China's advantage that they can produce advanced weapons quickly in large quantity due to their huge civilian industry base."

      It's important to remember that almost everything in Chinese industry, maritime and land or air transport systems is all dual use by design, and has been for something in the neighborhood of 25 years. So civilian manufacturing can be converted to military at the snap of your fingers. This is a problem... And yes, military R&D is very fast for several reasons including espionage and very flexible industrial processes. They are also very good at iterative development. Just look at the PLAN. It is a perfect example of build one, learn from it and fix the next one, then learn from it and fix the next one. The PLAAF is doing the same thing with what appears to be some success.

      I needed a chuckle. "tariffs success" indeed! Thank you.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsSeptember 17, 2025 at 4:00 PM

      Skip the politics, please.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2025 at 6:43 AM

      Once the British managed to shoehorn their 17 pdr. AT gun into a Sherman hull it was pretty much even stevens in a tank on tank engagement between the two, and the first tank to get an accurate round away was likely the winner.
      In both world wars the allies had the advantage of greater access to the ‘rare earths’ of the time: tungsten, chromium, molybdenum and manganese etc all meant improved metallurgy and better armor plate and AP rounds.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 3:04 PM

    Today, it is weapon system than single weapons. Use recent India-Pakistan air battle as an example, Pakistan has much better system than India. India could not integrate information system of AWACS and fighter jets made in different nations. There are several data link systems in Indian Air Force which don't talk to one another. In contrast, Pakistan developed their own Link 17, through help of China, it is integrated in their AWACS and JF-17 and J-10C plus HQ-9 SAM. Once their AWACS find Indian fighter jets, their fighter jets can then concentrate radar beam to lock them then fire missiles accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 17, 2025 at 3:59 PM

      Please supply links and references supporting your claims of the performance of the Pakistan data link system. This is NOT common knowledge and ALL systems sound great on paper. Most systems perform at far less than their claimed levels.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 8:20 PM

      Rather more crucial is that the Pakistani air force took training and lessons learned more seriously than the Indian air force. The Indians got sucesses in excercises against the USAF (most famously Cope Thunder) and appear to have been just resting on their laurels after that; meanwhile the Pakistanis were training against the Chinese air force, getting their asses kicked, and used that to identify doctrine and training gaps they needed to address - and then, crucially, worked to address those gaps.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2025 at 1:39 AM

      Yes the reports of the performance edge Pakistan had over India thanks to their fleet operating few types from one supplier were interesting. Sparked a lot of discussion across the aviation world.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2025 at 4:41 AM

      October issue of AirForce Monthly has 16-page world exclusive special report on the air battle. You need to be a paid member to see it. From other sources, this article gave some details on how Pakistan won. The author also mentioned, 4 rather than 3 Raffael were shot down.

      https://www.key.aero/airforcesmonthly

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsSeptember 18, 2025 at 7:48 AM

      "The author also mentioned, 4 rather than 3 Raffael were shot down."

      Just a caution ... reports vary from 0-4+, depending on the source. The consensus on the Internet seems to be 2. No one outside of various classified militaries knows for sure and none of them are saying. The ONLY source that knows for sure is India and it's unlikely they've shared the information even with allies and anything India states in public is for propaganda purposes. So, EVERY public claim is suspect and unfounded.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2025 at 10:04 PM

      Most importance thing is to understand how Pakistan Air Force won. Central Command has visited Pakistan and talked to them. Question is whether Pakistan told him everything.

      Delete
  5. NICOSeptember 17, 2025 at 4:08 PM

    https://theaviationist.com/2025/09/17/china-300th-j-20

    Speaking of production, looks like the 300th J20 was just spotted....probably won't be long before there will be more J20s than F22/F35 numbers put together.

    To me, the real lesson of Ukraine isn't really the drones, that's just a means to an end, novel tech for the uninitiated but drones have been around for decades, as CNO mentioned, the target of a oil refinery dates back to WW2 and hasn't lost any relevance in 2025! So with that, what are China's bottlenecks or ways USA could hurt them with a swarm of drones or cheap cruise missiles? That's the more important question IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 4:50 PM

      Its also interesting that the J-35/J-35A are both in production, albeit low-rate.

      My big question that I suspect no one can answer, is what is the status of the new Chinese aircraft? Do they have the same problems as the F-35, where none of the deliveries in the last year are actually combat capable, or are they put together well enough they are fully ready for squadron deployment and actual combat use?

      I do find it interesting that the Chinese EV industry is turning out a wide variety of very sophisticated vehicles that work extremely well at an attractive price. I can't think of another more appropriate comparison, although the Comac C919 airliner also works. When you look at development speed of their next two models after the C919 they may be going to cause Boeing and Airbus a problem. Their space program also seems to be chugging along pretty well.

      I wish we had a better metric to compare military aircraft production beyond "it looks pretty" and "it worked OK for Pakistan on one occasion".

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 8:22 PM

      For Chinese EVs, note that the attractive price is because they're taking advantage of government incentives - the Chinese govt pays EV manufacturers a certain amount of money for every new EV sold. What they have been doing is that they've been registering these cars into the ownership of shell companies in order to get that incentive, then turning around and offering these cars at discounted rates as "Zero Mileage Almost New Second Hand" cars. THere's been a scandal and investigation about this going on.

      Delete
    3. NICOSeptember 18, 2025 at 10:56 AM

      I think the biggest mistake we are making when looking at China is thinking that they are constrained by the same problems or dynamics in the West or short term timelines that are dictated by Wall Street.....let's make a couple of small assumptions:

      1. CIA for once isn't wrong and China/Xi want to be ready for war in 2027/2028, lets even say 2030.
      2. Let's say that the high level executives at Toyota and Nissan that have seen first hand what China is producing and know something about cars and have pretty much publicly said they can't keep up with the pace of change and adaptability of production in China aren't lies.
      3. China leaders have a modicum of competence and have decided to get ready and don't care about how much it costs them now.

      So putting those small assumptions together, why should we think that over capacity in EVs, smart phones and all the stuff China produces for the world is an issue if what you need for coming war in 2027/30 is massive industrial capacity, speed, adaptability, tons of engineers, etc for the next war?

      So maybe China has over capacity for another 2 or 3 years, who do think is in better position right now when it comes to base industrial capacity? USA or China?

      Come on, it's not even close, China is way ahead.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2025 at 1:06 PM

      I did see some analysis on this Nico, and the end result was exactly what you described, that the "overcapacity" was absolutely deliberate and Chinese industry was in exactly the position that their military planners wanted and needed. Not having to answer to Wall St next quarter has some huge advantages when you are planning your next build out.

      I am a big fan of Kevin Walmsley and "Inside China Business", and his article on electrical power capacity in China vs the US and resulting growth in AI is excellent. Its the same principle as overcapacity in the rest of industry.

      https://youtu.be/KQ3vsHTJf1M?si=pRpVoIYI5z95gsMa

      Delete
    5. ExJuniorSailorSeptember 18, 2025 at 8:01 PM

      "Abrams 4 crew requirement make it large..."

      You understand the difference between another MBT and a medium tank, correct?? And that the Abrams was designed to fight the Soviets in massive armored formation clashes in Germany, roughly 50 years ago??
      What evidence is there that the Israeli Trophy system is inferior to the Chinese version? How can you pronounce the armor scheme as superior and a good defender of the crew?? It all sounds frankly like a Chinese commercial or state propaganda...

      Delete
    6. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM

      To armor a large tank means lots of steel to make this tank heavy. I think that China deliberates to shrink crew size to 2 through automation so the type 100 tank can be light yet heavily armored. You only armor a small box than a big one.

      DDG 1000 is an example that Pentagon did on use automation to reduce manpower requirements. This also saves lots of veteran benefits and pensions in future.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2025 at 7:18 PM

    I don't understand why people talk about "kamikaze" drones as drones, rather than missiles. Isn't what missiles are? Unmanned flying devices with explosives with guidance?

    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2025 at 9:22 AM

      Key differences between a kamikaze drone and a missile:

      1) SPEED. Kamikaze drones are unusually limited to the low hundreds of miles per hour, a necessary sacrifice to increase flight-time endurance. Missiles regularly go supersonic, sacrificing flight-time endurance for such performance.

      2) Onboard sensors. Kamikaze drones are launched towards the targets' general direction, and use their onboard sensors to direct themselves towards the target- hence the need for long flight-time endurance, as they may take awhile loitering around the battlefield in search of a target. A missile's sensors are TOO SMALL to search for a target this way, hence they rely on the firing platform to provide PRECISE data on the target's location, BEFORE launch.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2025 at 3:11 PM

      Many have a wrong perception - toy level drones did most damages in current Ukraine war. In reality, most damages were done by drones with enough dynamites. Blade 300 has been proven close to useless. Toy drones are mainly for reconnaissance and best, kill single solider. People post videos of success attacks but not on those been shot down.

      On the other hand, drones are very useful to attack tank and armored vehicles. Even a heavy tank like Abram doesn't have (actually cannot have) thick armor all around it. Abram's thickness armor is front side. It is impossible to add more armor for this already 70 tons weight tank. A drone can selectively hit its weak spot (top and back, etc.).

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)