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

61–70 of 106 posts

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

#61

Post by cucumber3732842 »

m4rtink wrote: post #59
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…

Suppose the ship is immobilized or under tow after hitting a mine for example. Or even just in port in range of cheap dumb drones. Basically these make it much more likely you loose ships if they stop moving for any reason.

If your aircraft carrier is mobility kill what are you even doing? These things operate in a group with supporting vessels for a reason. Never mind that the point of a carrier is that its air group can reach out pretty far so you don't have to drive where the mines are.

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

#62

Post by sheikhnbake »

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…

The after action report was only recently declassified. This war game has been pretty widely publicized. Especially after the retired marine general that ran the OPFOR complained about it being rigged.

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

#63

Post by leereeves »

lukan wrote: post #58
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…

"The standard naval anti-ship drones are Harpoon, Exocet, and similar. These are qualitatively more capable than a Shahed " Those are called guided rockets and of course are more capable but also way more expensive. Shaheds can and did get basic guidance very cheap. Add a video, basic image processing to find big grey object in sea as target, send them radio controlled in the right direction .. so when they get jamme…

> 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.

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

#64

Post by lukan »

leereeves wrote: post #63
lukan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The standard naval anti-ship drones are Harpoon, Exocet, and similar. These are qualitatively more capable than a Shahed " Those are called guided rockets and of course are more capable but also way more expensive. Shaheds can and did get basic guidance very cheap. Add a video, basic image processing to find big grey object in sea as target, send them radio controlled in the right direction .. so when they get jamme…

> 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.

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

#65

Post by paleotrope »

smarm52 wrote: post #56

I thought this was common knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 > The Red force, led by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, used numerous asymmetrical tactics unanticipated by the Blue force; a pre-emptive cruise missile attack sank sixteen Blue warships and led to the exercise's suspension. The simulation was restarted with Blue forces fully restored, and Red force…

It gets endlessly recycled whenever it's needed for political reasons.

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

#66

Post by giantg2 »

We're still vulnerable to low tech warfare. We keep developing expensive systems that can't be manufactured quickly. One of the main reasons for success in WW2 was the fact that we could produce decent weapons in great volume. Japan had limited resources (draw a parallel to our rare earth situation). Germany had many advanced weapons, but couldn't produce enough (draw a parallel to our missiles).

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

#67

Post by cwillu »

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?

The sound of a shifting goalpost.

The statement being responded to was effectively that the carrier is indefensible, and that is clearly not the case.

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

#68

Post by nostrademons »

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…

This was the Millennium Challenge, which was leaked to the press in the early 2000s. I remember reading about it in 2006 in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, as an example of the power of intuition and rapidly-shifting command & control lines.

I totally agree with the rest of your post. The U.S. military now feels like the British Navy in the inter-war years, where they had massive battlecruisers like HMS Hood that were completely spotless, the pride of the British Navy, but also completely unsuited for combat and blew up the first time they saw it.

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

#69

Post by cwillu »

smarm52 wrote: post #56

I thought this was common knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 > The Red force, led by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, used numerous asymmetrical tactics unanticipated by the Blue force; a pre-emptive cruise missile attack sank sixteen Blue warships and led to the exercise's suspension. The simulation was restarted with Blue forces fully restored, and Red force…

Because the point of the wargame is that it's a training exercise for everyone involved, right down to the crews of the ships involved, not an nfl game. If the free-play portion ends up not exercising a bunch of expected scenarios because of an unexpected tactic, it would be monumentally wasteful to not make a note of the lesson and then reset with a script.

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

#70

Post by mghackerlady »

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…

right, but like, 10,000 of them? that's a lot and only a small fraction of the cost of more capable systems of destroying an aircraft carrier
Post reply on HN