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

War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#71

Post by [deleted] »

codedokode wrote: post #24
jandrewrogers wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Shahed is only useful against stationary soft targets, which an aircraft carrier is not. It also doesn’t have the kind of heavy warhead or terminal guidance required to defeat the armored structure of naval ships. Shahed doesn’t have any kind of countermeasure avoidance. Adding these would massively increase the cost. Naval anti-ship drones have been around for many decades. This is a highly evolved area of militar…

Modern Shaheds can be controlled through satellite links like StarLink, with high quality video. Also, targeting a large pile of metal in the sea should not be difficult with something like a radar.

[deleted]

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#72

Post by throwaway27448 »

DANmode wrote: post #36
throwaway27448 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finding the solution isn’t hard Finding a solution isn't hard until your adversary adjusts their tacts slightly and bypasses it a week later

Right. So, better be Agile, and have segmented groups doing really different things in different regions, not taking 10-25 years to develop new overpriced platforms while World Wars are being fought on DJI.

This seems like precisely the opposite rhetoric our navy uses to procure funds, and is certainly the opposite strategy we have used to build the navy. It feels like we somehow got trapped forty years in the past

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#73

Post by harpiaharpyja »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…

I don't think it's clearly established that 10,000 Shahed drones would actually be a threat to an aircraft carrier though.

Remember that 10k drones can't just be conjured into the air all at once or act with perfect coordination. There are operational limitations that prevent effectiveness from scaling up past a certain point.

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#74

Post by CryptoBanker »

perlgeek wrote: post #51
TulliusCicero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure a carrier strike group would actually outright lose to a giant swarm of drones, at least in terms of the carrier being sunk. A Shahed warhead is pretty small once you're using it against large warships. That said, I wonder why you don't see Ukraine and Russia doing this more -- "saving up" for massive clouds of long range strike drones every couple weeks, instead of sending out a couple hundred every nig…

> at least in terms of the carrier being sunk You don't need to sink a carrier to make it more of a liability than an asset. If you hit its radar systems and/or damage the surface enough that landing becomes impossible, it becomes a sitting duck. > That said, I wonder why you don't see Ukraine and Russia doing this more -- "saving up" for massive clouds of long range strike drones every couple weeks To some degree, t…

> If you hit its radar systems and/or damage the surface enough that landing becomes impossible, it becomes a sitting duck.

Both of these statements are wrong. Carriers generally rely on the radar systems of their escorts and their early warning aircraft much more than their own systems.

Similarly, even if the landing deck was damaged, again the carrier's escorts are its primary defense

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#75

Post by Our_Benefactors »

lukan wrote: post #64
leereeves wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An Iranian Shahed drone costs about $35,000 If that's right, then 10000 would cost $350 million. That's a lot of money to spend to not sink a carrier.

Ok, if there are really 10000 in a attack at once, I am pretty sure a carrier would burn so much, it is basically scrap metal. But I suppose 1000 already, or even 100 at once would be a serious threat with grave damage. I suppose we will find out sooner or later.

And now the cost has increased again, because you need to field enough simultaneous launches to get 10k in the air at the same time. It doesn’t mean you need 10k launchers, but you still need a lot

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#76

Post by amanaplanacanal »

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #13
chasil wrote: post #11

How is this dissimilar to the Ukrainian "Spider Web" attack on the Russian TU-22M and TU-95 aircraft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb

Iran doesn't have real-time spy satellites and Starlink. it can only launch their shitty shaheds at stationary targets in impotent rage like Russia does.

Exactly! That's why the US won so decisively in Afghanistan! ;)

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#77

Post by amanaplanacanal »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #31

I think they know that the military is mostly a grift in spending at times of peace. It keeps the military and benefactors happy. the defense industry employs people , which helps with support for the military. In times of war, they expect mobilization will mean different things. But I don't think it works that way. You can't suddenly go low tech, the mindset and the skills pipeline can't just be developed within a f…

The American populace would probably support a war if the American homeland was attacked. But American leaders would much rather project force elsewhere, which makes it hard to get the average American to buy into their schemes.

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#78

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #15
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…

A Shahed is only useful against stationary soft targets, which an aircraft carrier is not. It also doesn’t have the kind of heavy warhead or terminal guidance required to defeat the armored structure of naval ships. Shahed doesn’t have any kind of countermeasure avoidance. Adding these would massively increase the cost. Naval anti-ship drones have been around for many decades. This is a highly evolved area of militar…

I feel like this and many other responses are missing the point, e.g. focusing on the specifics of a current Shahed drone.

My main thesis is that the cost of small autonomous drones have dropped enormously over the past 20 years, and that increasingly drone swarms look like a much more capable and cost effective way of waging war than giant, incredibly expensive, slow moving targets. These giant but powerful machines (not just aircraft carriers but also things like tanks) are simply poorly suited to the future (and maybe even the present) of warfare.

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#79

Post by amtamt »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #76
b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran doesn't have real-time spy satellites and Starlink. it can only launch their shitty shaheds at stationary targets in impotent rage like Russia does.

Exactly! That's why the US won so decisively in Afghanistan! ;)

And now a dozen times in Iran?

Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare

#80

Post by matusp »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified. So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets. I think more critically, most of the…

How exactly would you deploy 10,000 drones? If you start thinking about the logistics of it (you need to store them somewhere, somebody needs to bring them from the storage and prepare them for launch, somebody needs to navigate them, ...), you will quickly realize that you budget is not as big as you would like.
Post reply on HN