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

41–50 of 106 posts

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

#41

Post by chii »

readams wrote: post #39
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…

And yet, in a recent conflict of the US navy vs swarms of drones, no ships were lost.

> no ships were lost

how much ammunition did the US navy use to shoot down incoming drones, and what are the cost of those vs the attacker's cost?

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

#42

Post by vasco »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #16
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'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…

I don't think they are fully automated in Ukraine vs Russia. For an onslaught you'd need to either have a lot of pilots, full automation or some in between of like 1 pilot controls one drone but another set of 10 drones fly in formation with the pilot and will self destruct hitting the same target the pilot flew into, but I'm not sure software for this exists yet.

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

#43

Post by m463 »

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…

Hasn't this always been the case? A hmmv vs random ieds. A tank vs a bunch of shoulder-mount rpgs. etc.

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

#44

Post by breppp »

apelapan wrote: post #28
JoshTko wrote: post #21

War game is not needed. The war with Iran has already proven that a relatively tiny but sophisticated opponent can have massive asymmetric impact on USA.

Relatively tiny? It is a 92 million person organisation with a 1.7 trillion dollar turnover, 2500+ years of continuous operations and covering an area 1/6th the size of USA.

"2500+ years of continuous operations"

I see it repeated a lot, but Iran is not a direct descendent of some Persian empire, it was conquered by Greeks, Arabs, Turks and Mongols and ruled by Arabs and Turks for most of its history.

These nationalist myths are not taken seriously for western countries but that criticism usually does not extend to foreign myths

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

#45

Post by nradov »

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.

For now only the USA has reliable access to anything like Starlink / Starshield. Radar isn't any kind of magic solution: it has limited range and field of view.

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

#46

Post by nradov »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #16
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'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…

Ukraine does save up their strike drones. They only launch major strikes on defended targets every week of so. Russia is increasingly running out of air defense systems in many regions.

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

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

marshray wrote: post #8
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

We reacted to this late. But it isn’t a coïncidence that low-cost munitions are now receiving, in the U.S., other countries’ decadeslong weapons budgets.

Did you have to press a special key to get that diacritical, or are you a writer for the New Yorker?

Long press on a Mac.

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

#48

Post by WatchDog »

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.

Any kind of radio control should be discounted when attacking a US carrier fleet, they will just be jammed.

Autonomous optically guided missiles/drones would fare better, but those are still vulnerable to being blinded by laser systems like HELIOS[0], and of course being shot down by anti air missiles or CIWS.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Laser_with_Integra...

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

#49

Post by nradov »

chii wrote: post #41
readams wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, in a recent conflict of the US navy vs swarms of drones, no ships were lost.

> no ships were lost how much ammunition did the US navy use to shoot down incoming drones, and what are the cost of those vs the attacker's cost?

Does that even matter? US GDP is orders of magnitude larger than Iran. The American way of war has long been based on minimizing casualties through overwhelming materiel superiority and profligate ammunition expenditure. Back in WWII the USA literally out produced Japan by 1000:1 in some types of munitions. Our industrial base has decayed a bit lately but that's a fixable problem.

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

#50

Post by wahern »

nradov wrote: post #46
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…

Ukraine does save up their strike drones. They only launch major strikes on defended targets every week of so. Russia is increasingly running out of air defense systems in many regions.

Russia also does this, with both drones and missiles. It also sends cheap decoys mixed in with the Shaheds, because it turns out they're not as cheap and plentiful as people think, especially when you're trying to hit hard targets.
Post reply on HN