I wonder how many nations need long range for defence? Of course offensive wars such as invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are different, but most uses for defence should happen relatively near to border.
That is an interesting document. In particular, the focus seems to be on preventing Latvia from being suddenly and completely invaded as happened in all three Baltic states last time. This includes gear and forces dedicated to detecting enemy operations, relatively high tech gear and systems like anti air missile defenses, and also the capability to keep the government functioning such as fortification and relocation.
One take away from all of this is that many of the actions being proposed for defense appear to be just as suitable for female service members as males. Operating detectors and signal scanners, staffing drones and anti air missile batteries, and keeping the government functional are all tasks that require awareness and training but not necessarily physical strength or robustness.
Tbh, now that we expect uavs everywhere, why would a competitive military in the 21st century even lead with troops. Shouldn't they do clean up to strategic attacks on various critical infrastructure.
They were just out shelling the nuclear facility when they could make some strategic strikes.
Still very fuzzy. Javelin missiles? Claymores? C4? Anti-personnel mines? Armored infantry transport vehicles with mounted machine gun? Armored infantry transport vehicles with small diameter turreted cannon? Counter-measures for their personal aircraft?
reply