Reiterating this is a bad piece with bad assumptions and bad math, which isn't even getting into how the authors (along with everyone else, seemingly) fundamentally misunderstand what HASs are actually capable of doing
Replies
Here’s a mad idea. Don’t have Armageddon.
sep 2, 2025, 4:43 pm • 0 0 • view
Like even if you take this statement at face value (you absolutely should not), the type of HASs they're talking about are more like $15M-$20M a piece to build in the places they're talking about building, and the missiles in question are more like sub $5M per, sooooo bsky.app/profile/shas...
sep 2, 2025, 4:38 pm • 13 2 • view
Also, not to sound like a snob, but their simulations are just a bunch of excel spreadsheets?!? dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtm...
sep 2, 2025, 4:41 pm • 0 0 • view
Boy, do i have some news for you about defense analysis in the Pentagon...
sep 2, 2025, 7:21 pm • 0 0 • view
And just to repeat, the type of HASs they're assuming are Iraqi style, which we cracked open with ease over 30 years ago The type we would actually build are tab-v style, which were only ever intended to protect against nuclear blast overpressure (at a distance) and frags
sep 2, 2025, 4:42 pm • 13 1 • view
The only thing shelters do is force missiles to use unitary warhead instead of DPICM (more missiles required) and provide some degree of concealment You can do this a lot cheaper with stuff like ESAPs than building "HASs"
sep 2, 2025, 4:42 pm • 12 0 • view
Also, the HAS is protecting a $100M jet.... So the math is even more f-ed up. Because they can hit each shelter with 10-20 missiles and it's still cost effective. And each decoy shelter (if built to same standards) just allows them to shoot more missiles and the math still works....
sep 3, 2025, 12:23 am • 2 0 • view
So if you build 10x shelters per jet they can still double / triple chat every shelter because of the expected payoff for being correct
sep 3, 2025, 12:29 am • 2 0 • view