3 ms·

70 years ago, cars weren't as complicated as tanks were. Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology?

all2 7y ago
> Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology? No. But I do think military technology has outpaced modern consumer technology in terms of complexity.
- linksnapzz 7y ago
  Complexity in what sense? Level of hardware integration? # of embedded controllers? Amount of time necessary to familiarize oneself with the operation of the system?
  - all2 7y ago
    [edit for readability] Complexity in every sense, at every stage of the design, testing, fabrication, and delivery. From discerning appropriate tactics for the coming century (which are used to produce design requirements that equipment is designed against) to writing the user's and maintainer's manuals, to the number of people required to get a particular sub-system into production, and so on. The bottom line is that a modern tank requires more people, more knowledge, more complex (number of parts, functionality, materials selection, fabrication, testing, etc.) and interconnected sub-systems, more complex manufacturing techniques, tighter tolerances (sometimes) (which lead to more complex methods of measure), more exacting specifications, etc., than a modern consumer vehicle. A standard automobile may have 20 to 50 microcontrollers that talk to each other on one CAN bus. A modern tank has at least 3 independent communication networks, an electrically isolated diagnostics system, distinct optics systems for the commander and pilot and gunner, a fire control sub-system, and so on. Each of these subsystems is immensely complex, designed and manufactured to exacting specifications for durability and maintainability. The specifications for each are so exact, that any subsystem can be torn out and another designed to the same spec can be swapped in. This is no trivial feat. This isn't like a new set of rims onto your car. It isn't even akin to piggy-backing or changing out the ECU in your car. It is at a whole different level, because each sub-system has to integrate with at least two other sub-systems (power and communications). This is like being able to tear out the autopilot portion of your Tesla and swap in some other company's autopilot, while keeping the rest of the systems intact.
  - briffle 7y ago
    Is your car radiation hardened to withstand an indirect nuclear attack? (tanks are) what about biological filters for the air? (telsa made waves a few years ago with its filtering, which is a lower standard). What requirements does your Chevy have to survive IED's, gunfire, and mines? What about real all wheel drive, and the ability to ford small ditches, etc (most of the wheeled military vehicles have very high ground clearance)
earthboundkid 7y ago
All of the apologist replies are based on the problem of overoptimizing. Yes, if you pay 100x as much, you can always get something 10% better. Is it worth it? Well, it is 10% better. Depends. For our military since the 70s, we have not fought a major power, and the main incentives are to keep the contractor money flowing and the body bag count down. So, the system is working to deliver what it is optimized to deliver. Were we to get into a war with Russia or China though, it's pretty clear we'd get our asses handed to us because we can only make N weapons for Y dollars while they make 10N weapons for the same price, and theirs are only 10% less effective than ours. As it is, ISIS and the Taliban can keep us spinning our wheels for a decade with nothing to show for it. Imagine a foe with an actual military budget…
- all2 7y ago
  To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results. I think this is a tenant of colliding ideologies of the occupied people, ideologies of the occupiers, and asymmetrical warfare (see a fantastic book titled "Small Wars").
  - gumby 7y ago
    > To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results Exactly, but was that lesson learned? No.
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      Also, they occupied Afghanistan for less time and with arguably more control.

all2 7y ago

> Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology? No. But I do think military technology has outpaced modern consumer technology in terms of complexity.

linksnapzz 7y ago
Complexity in what sense? Level of hardware integration? # of embedded controllers? Amount of time necessary to familiarize oneself with the operation of the system?
- all2 7y ago
  [edit for readability] Complexity in every sense, at every stage of the design, testing, fabrication, and delivery. From discerning appropriate tactics for the coming century (which are used to produce design requirements that equipment is designed against) to writing the user's and maintainer's manuals, to the number of people required to get a particular sub-system into production, and so on. The bottom line is that a modern tank requires more people, more knowledge, more complex (number of parts, functionality, materials selection, fabrication, testing, etc.) and interconnected sub-systems, more complex manufacturing techniques, tighter tolerances (sometimes) (which lead to more complex methods of measure), more exacting specifications, etc., than a modern consumer vehicle. A standard automobile may have 20 to 50 microcontrollers that talk to each other on one CAN bus. A modern tank has at least 3 independent communication networks, an electrically isolated diagnostics system, distinct optics systems for the commander and pilot and gunner, a fire control sub-system, and so on. Each of these subsystems is immensely complex, designed and manufactured to exacting specifications for durability and maintainability. The specifications for each are so exact, that any subsystem can be torn out and another designed to the same spec can be swapped in. This is no trivial feat. This isn't like a new set of rims onto your car. It isn't even akin to piggy-backing or changing out the ECU in your car. It is at a whole different level, because each sub-system has to integrate with at least two other sub-systems (power and communications). This is like being able to tear out the autopilot portion of your Tesla and swap in some other company's autopilot, while keeping the rest of the systems intact.
- briffle 7y ago
  Is your car radiation hardened to withstand an indirect nuclear attack? (tanks are) what about biological filters for the air? (telsa made waves a few years ago with its filtering, which is a lower standard). What requirements does your Chevy have to survive IED's, gunfire, and mines? What about real all wheel drive, and the ability to ford small ditches, etc (most of the wheeled military vehicles have very high ground clearance)

earthboundkid 7y ago

All of the apologist replies are based on the problem of overoptimizing. Yes, if you pay 100x as much, you can always get something 10% better. Is it worth it? Well, it is 10% better. Depends. For our military since the 70s, we have not fought a major power, and the main incentives are to keep the contractor money flowing and the body bag count down. So, the system is working to deliver what it is optimized to deliver. Were we to get into a war with Russia or China though, it's pretty clear we'd get our asses handed to us because we can only make N weapons for Y dollars while they make 10N weapons for the same price, and theirs are only 10% less effective than ours. As it is, ISIS and the Taliban can keep us spinning our wheels for a decade with nothing to show for it. Imagine a foe with an actual military budget…

all2 7y ago
To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results. I think this is a tenant of colliding ideologies of the occupied people, ideologies of the occupiers, and asymmetrical warfare (see a fantastic book titled "Small Wars").
- gumby 7y ago
  > To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results Exactly, but was that lesson learned? No.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    Also, they occupied Afghanistan for less time and with arguably more control.