Yeah totally impossible to make outside of Sci-Fi right? I guess they can't be amphibious either.
Oh wait, y'all were being sarcastic.

Oh wait, y'all were being sarcastic.
Not a big revision though, just return to previous times, when total air superiority was not taken for granted.Ok, I knew the vehicles themselves exist, they have done so in one way or another from WWII but to put in large numbers in the field to deal with the current trend of making smaller and cheaper drones would be where a revision of the AA doctrine would be needed and then an increase in the budget to equip both frontline armored units as well as motorized versions for everyone else.
And ironically the US planes got high altitude threats well under control while low flying aircraft and helicopters, drones and missiles are the most likely to slip the net of air supremacy fighters.Guns are useless at high altitude aircraft.
Low flying is where they make up for it
That's a 'yes and no' answer, largely because the environment has changed, and more specifically the sensor environment changed. Take the Sgt. York, for example, had the revolutionary ability to pick up any aircraft from ground clutter that is anything less than radar opaque. That sort of radar capability is in the F-35 and in any upgrades to the F-teen fighters' radar sets (please note that the Sgt York's designers managed this feat with an F-16 radar set, they had some bugs to work out on the sensitivity and fire control). So, unless you're skimping out on upgrades and maintenance (like *cough* Russia *cough*), modern aircraft are going to pick helicopters, missiles, and drones out of the ground clutter.And ironically the US planes got high altitude threats well under control while low flying aircraft and helicopters, drones and missiles are the most likely to slip the net of air supremacy fighters.
That's a bit of a 'yes and no' answer, largely because aircraft don't react well to, well, much of anything hitting them at high velocity. Tends to do things like rip into components and control surfaces and whatnot. Also, missiles don't generally fly that fast anyway, generally less than a kilometer per second (outside of the Russian 'lolhuge' supersonic ASMs) from my understanding.I would point out that AHEAD was designed as an anti-missile round rather than an AAA round, and actually less effective against aircraft than a "plain" proximity fused AA shell. What AHEAD is designed for and shines at is laying controlled scatter patterns of heavy slugs along the projected trajectory of a very fast incoming round.
Considering the similar issues in Karabach, i think the issue is "it's doable but requires the crew to fiddle with sensor/fire control settings that they are normally told not to touch as they are not trained to touch them and/or degrade performance against other air threats".Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
Largely because the forces deployed are... Iraqi conscript-level competent at best, with equipment that hasn't been properly maintained (from my understanding). It's telling that even China -which is in the same ballpark as Russia in the corruption department- still forces its military to at least be competent in maintaining their equipment... but then again even China has shyed away from conscription.Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
And yet a Russian refinery got blyat'd by a drone the Ruskie's apparently either didn't see coming, or thought was their own.Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
China at least has good conditions for maintaining their hardware. They are modernizing and expanding their army, so they get rid of old crap that may need restoration. Something like at least half of their armored vehicles were built in this century, and they are building more all the time.Largely because the forces deployed are... Iraqi conscript-level competent at best, with equipment that hasn't been properly maintained (from my understanding). It's telling that even China -which is in the same ballpark as Russia in the corruption department- still forces its military to at least be competent in maintaining their equipment... but then again even China has shyed away from conscription.
I said fixed most, not fixed all. Also, no system is 100% perfect. Only in very bad novels.And yet a Russian refinery got blyat'd by a drone the Ruskie's apparently either didn't see coming, or thought was their own.
Sure, but you've presented no actual evidence that Russian anti-aircraft performance has improved in the first place.I said fixed most, not fixed all. Also, no system is 100% perfect. Only in very bad novels.
Because Ukrainian drones including the Turkish-made ones started to be shot down, left, center, and right?Sure, but you've presented no actual evidence that Russian anti-aircraft performance has improved in the first place.