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

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

mwi.westpoint.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 701 posts

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#121

Post by mikewarot »

jerlam wrote: post #86
tpurves wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this strategy worked to keep Ukraine alive, by enabling them to throw literally anything and everything they could obtain into the fight. And the system enabled rapid experimentation and evolution of what works. Also they didn't have enough of anything to equip all units equally or fully, so a market-like system of was also a way to triage short supply. However the logistics costs of fragmentation are very real (rele…

Wouldn't a fragmented, decentralized system also help make their supply chains more resilient? If they had a single large drone factory, it would be a sizable target.

During WW2 in the United States, you had all sorts of consumer goods companies reorganized to output a prodigious amount of military supplies. There were multiple companies making the same model of things, with fairly rigorous QA to ensure quality and uniformity.

For example, the BC-348 receiver, widely used in aircraft, was produced initially by RCA, and eventually "farmed out" to 3 other manufacturers.

More than 4 million M1903 Springfield Rifle were produced by the Smith-Corona typewriter company.

Here's a really good example, look at how the production of proximity fuzes, was distributed.[1]

The key thing is to have second sources for everything. Something the US military seems to have forgotten, or decided to ignore in their pursuit of gold-plated weapons systems that give the most kick-backs.

[1] https://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/vtproximityfuze.htm

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#122

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #98
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't reliably prove that something is written by an LLM. There are certainly tells but it could be a personal writing style as well. When reading everything with the suspicion that it might be written by an LLM you are at best finding LLM written content and at worst accuse people of using an LLM when they haven't. Nothing is gained by the accusation. For me a better way is to find out if I want to read the text…

I'll admit it cannot be proven to the standard of criminal conviction, but I don't think it's beyond a person's or technology's ability to identify enough "tells" to make a solid conclusion. I can share the things that stick out to me if desired, not that it ultimately constitutes any "proof". > Still there is nothing to be gained from distrusting and calling out authors Is there nothing ? Nothing at all to be gained…

I don't think you gain anything. The article is written, it will not be rewritten or unwritten because you said it's written by an LLM. I don't see the author not using LLMs in the future if they did use them.

I don't see how you changed anything by pointing out that you assume that this is written by an LLM. What was gained? I don't really see anything. Do you think anyone is dissuaded from reading the article or from using an LLM the next they write something because you could maybe probably tell that it's probably written by an LLM?

I think we all lose more than we gain if we do this. We look at each other with mistrust over whether they used an LLM and we point fingers as soon as we see a sign of "wrongdoing". I see artists and writers frustrated about being accused of using ML tools. And the people who just use LLMs and image generation tools mostly just don't care.

The whole "AI" industry makes everything diffuse. We have to go by vibes if something is made by a human or not and the signs are ever more subtle. We have to be so incredibly careful not to accuse those who are on our side. People who create real human work.

For me the easiest solution for now is to stop accusing. Unless you know for certain that there was not a real human behind it don't point fingers.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#123

Post by wnevets »

malfist wrote: post #11
bad_haircut72 wrote: post #6

When Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody (even the Ukranians) imagined that 5 years later they would have their own missiles hammering Russia 2500kms in the rear. Americans need to start accepting that a) the Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years and b) Iran will probably in a better place than they are now, strategically speaking.

> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. What's the goal of the US/Iran war? So far it seems like the goal is to mostly return to the status quo prior to the war. I can't imagine that could continue 5 years because there's just not an objective. Of course, I could easily be mistaken.

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

To make certain people money by shorting the oil market. There is a reason why these "peace" deals are always announced on Fridays.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#124

Post by nickphx »

rawgabbit wrote: post #97
phkahler wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military knows full well the importance of logistics. TFA is somehow arguing for distributed distribution networks that are harder to track and attack. Why not advocate for improved defenses along the supply lines? Or is it down to percentages where just one good hit has large effect?

Ukraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.

huh? how does one keep a human in the loop for decision making it there is not an 'electronic tether'?

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#125

Post by zhengyi13 »

abejfehr wrote: post #53
homeonthemtn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard this before. Do you have a good article on it? I'd be curious to learn more

They might be referring to the e-Points system, where hitting targets awards points and you can trade the points in for drones, etc

They literally gamified it? Amazing.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#126

Post by bix6 »

lopsotronic wrote: post #107
silvestrov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting innovations in the Ukraine war is their internal market place for drones, letting each drone group decide which drones they want to procure and use in battle. It is not a top-down decision, production and supply as other armies use for their weapons logistics.

You also have to ponder how it looks when you remove the Chinese supply chain for all those commodity parts. Which will almost certainly be the case if we decide to punch that dance card. Having a boundless cornucopia of servos and radios will affect the shape of your logistics/maintenance/fabrication complex. That's not just a "Ukraine Problem" either.

I am so curious about this. There are a lot of 3D printed drone startups now. But nobody really seems to be thinking about the electronics sourcing. Great you can print a drone shell wherever but what happens if China turns off exports?

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#127

Post by LinuxAmbulance »

thrownawaysz wrote: post #68

>the difficulty of transporting extremely heavy 155-millimeter artillery shells and guided multiple-launch rocket system pods across contested oceans and degraded theater road networks I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked

> I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked

It can be, but it would be very, very difficult for anything short of lobbing ICBMs around. You'd have to have a fleet of ships that would be detected as soon as they set sail, and then protect that fleet for the entire voyage, which would also be extremely difficult for any adversary.

Getting boots on US soil would be even tougher.

Drones are an option, but cross-ocean ones are not an easy problem to solve.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#128

Post by Someone »

kayo_20211030 wrote: post #2

A very insightful, and correct, piece. I'll quote in full the following, which I think gets to the heart of the matter. If you have no push, you can't apply pressure to the point. > The notion that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics is frequently discussed in military academies and war colleges, yet it is rarely reflected in the Army’s budget requests or modernization priorities. The outdated conc…

Historically, that was phrased as “an army marches on its stomach”

I think that’s an apt comparison because it was hard to keep an army fed (https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-...)

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#129

Post by cucumber3732842 »

larrik wrote: post #19
kayo_20211030 wrote: post #2

A very insightful, and correct, piece. I'll quote in full the following, which I think gets to the heart of the matter. If you have no push, you can't apply pressure to the point. > The notion that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics is frequently discussed in military academies and war colleges, yet it is rarely reflected in the Army’s budget requests or modernization priorities. The outdated conc…

They should probably rename it from "tail" to "neck" and watch the attitudes shift immediately.

Tooth to tail is crappy PC/corporate-approved rename. The concept used to have a bunch of arrow and spear related names and a bunch of informal phallic counterparts all of which are better suited to the fundamental workflow of mechanized offensive operations.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#130

Post by cucumber3732842 »

kayo_20211030 wrote: post #112
rawgabbit wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was written by a major trying to convince both those in charge of military doctrine (army leadership) and military budget (civilian leadership). Both of which can be obstinate and counterproductive. Army brass sometimes prioritize their careers over everything else. Civilian leadership sometimes prioritize their careers over everything else.

Yes. I agree, although careerism in the military is maybe not that strong an influence; it is, for sure, but not that strong yet. Careerism in the political class is probably exactly as strong as you claim it is. However, I do hope there are sensible people within that group too, and they heed the underlying message.

The military is still fairly results focused compared to the political class so that at least sort of pushes back on the most flagrant careerism.
Post reply on HN