4 ms·

> if military tech were developed with "Open Hardware" goals in mind Not going to happen. Military hardware is (most of the time) cutting-edge technology. If w

by dexen 15y ago

> if military tech were developed with "Open Hardware" goals in mind Not going to happen. Military hardware is (most of the time) cutting-edge technology. If we are talking about a fighter plane, most of its components have to exhibit high performance overall -- and in small package. The abilities of the plane hinge on every component and their co-operation as well; the weakest link is the limiting factor. Each military technology has two aspects: instances of use (for lack of better word), and capability. Consider encryption for a moment: an algorithm of any size and complexity is driven by a small key (a bunch of bytes). The small secret part (key) is enough to to keep each use instance (each encoded text) safe. However, in case of military hardware, the capability itself is of paramount importance as well. You can't focus all the aspects of fighter plane in one `key' piece; each component has to provide some aspect of the capability -- and withstand results of use of other components, such as heat, acceleration, vibration etc. Since no `key' is possible to hardware, you have to guard whatever else is there to guard -- and that, unfortunately, is most of the pieces. Nb., a lot of military standards [1] are commercially-accessible, to help build a healthy ecosystem of suppliers. But those are not cuttind-edge stuff; I don't think even the formula for SR-71's `JP-7' fuel was accessible during operational use of the plane... ---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_standard

gaius 15y ago
Military hardware is (most of the time) cutting-edge technology Much as I'd like this to be true, it simply isn't. Your smartphone is more sophisticated than military comms equipment. It's been a running joke for years how bad the British Army's systems like Clansman are. Clansman for example was introduced in the 70s and is only just now being replaced by Bowman. (I used Clansman during the early 90s as a cadet). Think how fast mobile tech moves - can you imagine using a mobile phone 20 years old? Soldiers serving in the former Yugoslavia in peacekeeping used their personal mobile phones to communicate - more reliable and more secure than the issued kit.
- mcritz 15y ago
  There is a certain benefit to tried-and-trusted systems with known strengths and weaknesses. I'm not advocating lethargy when adopting new technologies, keeping reliable equipment and weaponry is a good thing. Also, the cost of creating new technologies may not yield significant benefits. E.g. the F-22 is only marginally better (or marginally worse depending on your perspective) than the aircraft it was intended to replace, but at a huge cost.
berkut 15y ago
Military hardware is cutting edge when it's developed, but by the time it's in service (after years of testing and service trials) it's often 8+ years old. Most of the tech in the F-22 is late 90's era - the same as the French Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon - The F-22 has the best late 90's equipment in service, but it's not cutting edge any more.

by dexen 15y ago

gaius 15y ago

Military hardware is (most of the time) cutting-edge technology Much as I'd like this to be true, it simply isn't. Your smartphone is more sophisticated than military comms equipment. It's been a running joke for years how bad the British Army's systems like Clansman are. Clansman for example was introduced in the 70s and is only just now being replaced by Bowman. (I used Clansman during the early 90s as a cadet). Think how fast mobile tech moves - can you imagine using a mobile phone 20 years old? Soldiers serving in the former Yugoslavia in peacekeeping used their personal mobile phones to communicate - more reliable and more secure than the issued kit.

mcritz 15y ago
There is a certain benefit to tried-and-trusted systems with known strengths and weaknesses. I'm not advocating lethargy when adopting new technologies, keeping reliable equipment and weaponry is a good thing. Also, the cost of creating new technologies may not yield significant benefits. E.g. the F-22 is only marginally better (or marginally worse depending on your perspective) than the aircraft it was intended to replace, but at a huge cost.

berkut 15y ago

Military hardware is cutting edge when it's developed, but by the time it's in service (after years of testing and service trials) it's often 8+ years old. Most of the tech in the F-22 is late 90's era - the same as the French Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon - The F-22 has the best late 90's equipment in service, but it's not cutting edge any more.