[vmh1928]

We are dependent on a relatively small number of complex weapons systems. In a high intensity conflict with a peer like China, say, we could expect to loose a significant number of our big ticket items within a few days. It's a big mistake that we don't have a swarm of cheap systems mentality but I suppose that doesn't benefit the MIC so it's a no go. We'll pay for it some day.

[arrobbiato]

This is the problem that the Pentagon’s Replicator Initiative is trying to solve.[1] However, the initiative (while well funded) only began less than two years ago. As MacArthur once said, every failure in war comes down to two words: “Too late.” We shall see.

[1] https://www.diu.mil/replicator

[jonstewart]

It’s more nuanced, though. The choices made for the types of exquisite vs mass must be correct, and the mix of features of each system. With the WW2 aircraft carriers, a high number of the escort carriers were lost—they were slow and easily sunk. So it’s not clear they were a good allocation of resources. Light carriers—smaller and less well-armored than fleet carriers, but about as fast—did considerably better.

The GLSDB in Ukraine looked like it would turn the tide on paper—relatively cheap precision warheads with a huge stock of ammo which could outrange artillery and hit supply lines. But they’ve been a nonentity because of Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities. It’s similar with drones—Ukraine’s FPV drones stopped being effective due to EW, but then they switched to fiber optic cable and that’s made an enormous difference.

Aircraft carriers today are sitting ducks. The more we make, the more we’d lose.