Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

search.informit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#11

Post by bartlettD »

Archelaos wrote: post #8

The license terms of the article seem contradictory in a way. When I download the PDF it includes an appendix stating: > Copyright of Full Text rests with the original copyright owner and, except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material is prohibited without the permission of the owner or its exclusive licensee or agent or by way of a license from Copyright Agency Limited. For inform…

Thats odd, I can't see any reference to Creative Commons in my copy. The copyright rests with the Australian Defence Force Journal and is administered by Copyright Agency Ltd as far as I understand.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#12

Post by stavros »

thriftwy wrote: post #9
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

Modern consumer drones are of great use now - these do not cost that much but are basically only produced in China. FPV drones can almost be crafted locally, though, using off the shelf components.

Nothing "almost" about it, they're very easy to build. I've built a few of them.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#13

Post by thriftwy »

dgan wrote: post #10
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

Does it? FPVs and Lancet drones and anti-ship missiles and Shahed/Geran' reliably show their ability to hit many of orders of magnitude value targets.

The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#14

Post by loceng »

MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

The rent seeking aspect of the any industrial complex is driven by manufactured consent, for politicians to pillage the public coffers they have access to, and so it's heavily overpriced - the price not driven by free market but by war profiteering.

In Elon Musk biography by Isaacson, Elon explains the importance to why he sued NASA on behalf of SpaceX - in regards to the $227 million sole-source contract NASA awarded to Kistler in 2004; the strength or weight of the importance here outweighed any personal-emotional feelings and relationships he had, he stuck to his guns of seeing the corruption and understanding the negative impact and unfairness to SpaceX - perhaps selfish in nature but if Elon's nature is for fairness and justice, long live Elon.

But yes, save blanket bombing a whole territory, guerilla warfare with necessity-survival will lead to the most creative possibilities.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#15

Post by gpderetta »

dgan wrote: post #10
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

I think it is more complicated. Both sides are consuming huge quantities of cheap artillery, drones, SAM, anti-tank mines and vehicles. HIMARS and smart artillery shells can make up for differences in fire powers, but only up to a point. Better tanks and IFV increase crew survivability, but they still get taken out of combats by drones, artillery and mines.

I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles (to counter the Russian ones) and stealth planes to avoid SAM (but Russians are not using theirs, probably because they suck, but still...).

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#16

Post by hef19898 »

MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

Asymetric warfare is very different from the near-peer conventional warfare we see in Ukraine.

One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low tech weapons, heck, everything older than the Vietnam War won't cut it anymore.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#17

Post by k__ »

dgan wrote: post #10
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

Could be that the Russian tech isn't just old, but also badly maintained.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#18

Post by hef19898 »

dmoy wrote: post #6
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

The US military has known this for a long time, it just chooses to bury its head in the sand and ignore it. See e.g. MC02 where they lost to opfor with what was literally like a cheaply thrown together zerg rush, and then just reset the scenario for a do-over.

Ah, that one war game. Reality is more complicated than that, as all wars since WW2 have shown us.

I agree so, not all lessons from that particular wargame seem to have been learned. Calling what mounted to a quite brilliant, unconventional strategy a "cheaply thrown together zerg rush" is just blatantly wrong so.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#19

Post by genman »

hef19898 wrote: post #16
MichaMeier wrote: post #2

Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.

Asymetric warfare is very different from the near-peer conventional warfare we see in Ukraine. One cannot occupy a region milotarily if a large enough portion of the local population is hell bent to oppose that accupation. That's what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ukraine is what happens ofnthe imvasion force is met by defenders capable of stopping the invasion. And the war in Ukraine cannot be fought with low…

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won.

The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammunition then you are done. If your supply lines are cut then you are done. It is also the main reason why the two wars mentioned were lost - incapacity of political will to cut the enemy supply lines.

Re: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Military Technology (2010)

#20

Post by jojobas »

gpderetta wrote: post #15
dgan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

I think it is more complicated. Both sides are consuming huge quantities of cheap artillery, drones, SAM, anti-tank mines and vehicles. HIMARS and smart artillery shells can make up for differences in fire powers, but only up to a point. Better tanks and IFV increase crew survivability, but they still get taken out of combats by drones, artillery and mines. I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles…

Artillery wasn't cheap in WW1 and it isn't cheap now. Dumb 155mm howitzer shells are ~$3k apiece. The cheapest SAMs (ex-Soviet MANPADs) are easily 20 times that.
Post reply on HN