23 ms·
Ares Industries – Building low-cost cruise missiles
- daft_pink 2y agoGlad to see American tech companies supporting America in this geopolitically tumultuos time!
- rationalfaith 2y ago[dead]
- WheelsAtLarge 2y agoAm I the only one that thinks this is very sad? Mass killing on a budget?
- basementcat 2y agoI think this is a logical consequence of miniaturization (and cost reduction) of electronic components and sensors. Signal processing algorithms (perhaps used for target tracking) can be done in software instead of custom analog electronics. I’ve been contacted by recruiters from multiple venture funded cruise missile (and related weapons systems) companies.
- WheelsAtLarge 2y agoIf that's the case, it is only a matter of time before we all can afford our own cruise missiles. I see your point. The way I see it there's a great advantage to having big very expensive weapons, such as only a few countries can afford them and they are so expensive and destructive that leaders aren't so quick to use them.
- defrost 2y agoThat acts as a deterrent to big actions, nuclear nation Vs nuclear nation in direct conflict World War scale confrontations. As the entire post WWII Cold War era and recent post 9/11 decades have shown, however, is that big expensive weapons that destroy entire cities in a single package have done little to stop endless low level warring. Small conflicts continue none the less, the US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Russian actions in Syria, the Crimean and Ukraine invasions, etc. (many many other "et cetera's"). A Chinese expansion to take Tawain would be of a similar "small" scale from the PoV of "does this warrent a nuclear response". It would be a naval battle in many ways and the best deterrance, perhaps, is an over supply of "cheap" semi autonomous self guiding over the horizon evasive ship killer missiles. The knowledge that any ships that engage could be rapidly removed from the board is the very thing that might see such usage not come to pass.
- Teever 2y agoI've been trying to find it for years but about 20 years ago when that guy from New Zealand was trying to build his own cruise missile for under $20k I found a DoD paper that had a line I'll paraphrase that stood out to me: 'the DIY cruise missile will become the AK-47 of the 21st century'
- Animats 2y ago> If that's the case, it is only a matter of time before we all can afford our own cruise missiles. What do we do when the Sinaloa cartel gets the capability to attack LA? They're already heavily involved in preventing the election of officials opposed to them.[1] [1] https://apnews.com/article/mexico-drug-cartels-violence-elections-43b1689bff1b38c68e8428a74c2e9a83 https://apnews.com/article/mexico-drug-cartels-violence-elec...
- jcgrillo 2y agoThey have such an ability right now. They could easily get a fleet of quarter scale R/C aircraft with autonomous control ala pixhawk, load them up with explosives and fuel, and send them on a one way trip to the big city. Maybe $5-10k ea. The first attack would likely be very successful, because nobody is ready for it. Expect effectiveness to degrade over time as air defense systems and fighters are deployed. I wouldn't expect them to do this, though, because anyone contemplating such a thing would realize the response would be immediate and decisive. Cartels are after all business organizations, and you can't do business if you're spending all your time dodging hellfire missiles.
- mrkstu 2y agoYep. A 9-11 Afgan style response would be much easier when the perps are literally next door.
- basementcat 2y agoThis may create a market opportunity for "personal Iron Dome" like products. Perhaps it’s not too late to apply for the next YC opportunity?
- bigiain 2y agoBay Area gated communities, with Google and Facebook shuttle buses, and anti cruise missile defence systems built by YC funded "peace" startups. Be right back, quickly buying up some realestate...
- carabiner 2y agoI think it's incredible how the tech industry has turned from "don't be evil" to supporting all manner of vices. On Twitter, SV VC's openly support Trump, and not just Peter Thiel. They're just corrupted and went from counter-culture to accelerating all of the old power structures.
- Log_out_ 2y agomaybe they just goto know the alternatives behind the hippy veil and they are ugly old landempires using idiots.
- remarkEon 2y agoYou are not the only one, which is an interesting commentary on how far the Arsenal of democracy has fallen.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- EasyMark 2y agoOther than the US and maybe England does anyone else in the “western democracies” have any more than some high tech gizmos in short supply that military economy Russia can’t overcome with their 50’s and 60s style warfare? I didn’t agree with 95%of what Trump said but I did agree with him trying to push for NATO countries to get on the ball and remilitarize because Russia is running their economy on war and oil now and Europes seems to be in lala land
- remarkEon 2y agoEngland has no real defense industry to speak of. They no longer have the ability to produce the steal needed for e.g. surface ships, they have to import it. Germany still has the ingredients for a defense industrial base, and so does France. Trump, well, he's right on this one. There's a pretty serious free-rider problem that's been festering since the Berlin wall fell.
- throw0982345 2y ago[flagged]
- zaptrem 2y agoThe alternatives are sadder: 1. We stick with the current wasteful and expensive models and have less money for everything else the government does. 2. We don't buy cruise missiles at all and Putin and friends gleefully march across eastern Europe/whatever land they believe is theirs.
- fnord77 2y agowe'll spend the same amount of money, we'll just have more weapons
- AYBABTME 2y agoIt's good to have a moral compass that dislikes the concept of war. But we shouldn't confuse that for an effective strategy to deter violence. In a complex world that continues to have ideological challenges, economic constraints and susceptibility to coercion by violent thugs (Putin), forgiving weapons supremacy is betrayal of our peaceful ideals, families, neighbours. Anti-weapons as a policy to achieve peace is quite an incomplete train of thought.
- nickpinkston 2y agoWell said
- brigadier132 2y agoIt's sad in the same way it's sad that we still have war. Doesn't mean it isn't necessary.
- SkyPuncher 2y agoThe Ukraine-Russia war largely changed my opinion on this type of stuff. War is still the ultimate leverage. A hostile nation deciding to take you out forces you to defend yourself. Russia has shown that quantity largely outweighs quality. I see two reasons for this: 1. Quantity can exhaust supplies. It’s hard to defend yourself when you’re out of ammo or people. 2. Quality is concentrated. It’s easier to destroy and be done with. This type of tech is the future of defense and deterrence. Being able to send hundreds or thousands of smaller drones ensures at least some make it through.
- Log_out_ 2y agoAnd the final step is component standardization at the dimensions and interface level.build new cheap systems on the fly using automation and cheap standardized subcomponents. 3 batteries, 1gyro, 1 motor,1 cpu, 1 explosive , wrap it in shrinkwrap,firmware + mission upload and every one can buy it, every can use it, end of world, MOSAICs Forgot the camera. Basically push a cellphone into standardized brick, not to unsimilar too industrial plc bus cards. ps:in picture a bigdog like system built by lego of death: https://github.com/PicassoCT/MOSAIC/blob/master/luaui/images/loadpictures/LoadScreen14.png https://github.com/PicassoCT/MOSAIC/blob/master/luaui/images... pss no reason to not build cruise missile like systems from the same lego.
- Log_out_ 2y agobonus points if you can triangulate the powersource == fuel == explosives equation
- LorenPechtel 2y agoYup. Look at what's happening in the Black Sea. Russia has a big hammer. It can unquestionably kill a target it decides to kill and Ukraine is basically powerless to prevent that. Ukraine has pinpricks. They have to wait for the best conditions to attack and have no certainty as to whether they can kill their target or not. But the Russian ships can't be wily all the time, they have to sometimes be sitting ducks. And the only weapons Russia has that can engage those sea drones is guns. I believe that in reality you need some of each. Quality fights quality, quantity fights quantity. Quantity does very little against big quality, but big quality does very little against quantity. You want to knock down that LORASM that your radar just picked out of terrain? You need something that can get there fast, drones won't do it.
- cm2012 2y agoIf you want peace, you have to be prepared for war. Otherwise, those who did prepare for war can do whatever they want to you and your country.
- shmerl 2y agoSi vis pacem, para bellum.
- tomjen3 2y agoIn the best world we wouldn't need guns. In this world, we do. The sad thing for me is whom it is used on and whom it is not.
- globalnode 2y agoI agree it is very sad. Not enough effort on de-escalation, negotiation and understanding. And with a stockpile of cheap weapons it will be ever easier for greedy, lazy, corrupt and cowardly policy makers to simply press a button and hope it gets them what they want. It won't though.
- Log_out_ 2y agoyeah, more surrender to aggressive dictatorships by 'change through trade'. right now someone is bleeding out in ukraine because you peaceniks had your way for thirty years. bloody handed well spoken monsters in a world they want to leave ...
- LorenPechtel 2y agoPeaceniks had their way for thirty years?!?! The Ukraine war is not due to peaceniks. Had the hawks been in charge we would be in pretty much the same situation as we are now. Up until 2014 there is nothing any reasonable hawk would have done differently with Ukraine. Even after they had their come-to-Jesus moment and cleaned up their act there's still little more we could have done. We were helping them get their military in order, what else was there to do? I do think the peaceniks are very wrong in saying it could have been avoided by diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they caused the war.
- Log_out_ 2y agoThe blatant nature of land empire of "grab all you can get ,never let go, lie through your teeth,assume everyone else is a lying land empire also " was visible even during the fall of the sovjet union in grosny , the various border raids of china into its neighbors (vietnam), and the various persian proxy wars. but the problem was that dove liberal future optimism incompetence infected a whole generation of politicians. including the "warmongery" group around bush junior . which removed one landempire containing another from the map and just ignored the other unreformables while they staged blatant psyops.
- hcfman 2y ago
- boxed 2y agoNow that the crossbow is invented, war is too cheap and deadly to be viable.. said a Pope at the time.
- egorfine 2y agoI was thinking exactly the same. But then war came to my home in Kiev. Problem is, no matter how deep are your philosophical thoughts on arms and peace, there are countries that just want to kill you, plain and simple. In order to have the ability to continue being concerned on the spending on mass killing, you have to be ready to physically defend your favorite Starbucks.
- gangorgasm 2y ago> you have to be ready to physically defend your favorite Starbucks. Well ... they have a new 'super commuting" CEO if that helps
- markovs_gun 2y agoI agree somewhat, but I would like to point out that a huge portion of the cost of advanced weapons systems is waste intentionally baked into the processes of designing, manufacturing, and testing these systems to squeeze as much money out of governments as possible. This sort of thing has huge potential benefits for tax payers everywhere
- EasyMark 2y agoI think only those who make money off of war “like it”. The rest of us who are pro military simply see it as the only way. Diplomacy will only get you so far and if you don’t have a big pile of bombs to back it up then your diplomacy is worthless against a power hungry fool like Putin. All they understand is loss of power or gaining of power, nothing else registers in the brains.
- marxisttemp 2y agoMurder is wrong. War is wrong.
- jojobas 2y agoLet's all surrender to Xi and Putin then.
- boxed 2y agoSelf defense is right and necessary. Or at the very least, the best we can hope for.
- throwaway48540 2y agoWeapons prevent murder and war. War happens only when one side has an advantage over the opponent.
- egorfine 2y agoAs a Ukrainian, I cannot agree with you more. I agree with you on all levels, down to a cellular. So please please please produce those cruise missiles and make the tech available to us.
- sgt 2y agoNot sure if the Russians on HN agree with you.
- alecnotthompson 2y agoThis is disgusting. > we can make sure the United States is prepared to stop a conflict and save countless lives > building something incredibly cool and want to make a positive difference in geopolitics Someone has never used their critical thinking skills. MLK Jr said the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. These missiles won't be used against rogue states, they'll be used to kill innocent people and children in the poorer countries that aren't behaving like the empire wants.
- anon291 2y ago[flagged]
- janalsncm 2y ago> complete worldwide peace Aside from the fact that complete worldwide peace has yet to happen, it is also worth mentioning that this period also coincided with nuclear proliferation. If Iraq had nuclear ICBMs they would not have been invaded.
- grahamjameson 2y agoIs the worldwide peace in the room with us now?
- boxed 2y agoYes. In fact it is.
- anon291 2y agoYes? Large-scale war in Europe and the Middle East every few decades used to be the norm. The Hamas-Israel 'war' is nothing compared to those uprisings. It's like chump change. Also it can be ended tomorrow if the USA wanted it too (or Israel). There is no major threat to world peace at the given time, and it's amazing. It's caused poverty to fall drastically pretty much everywhere. All thanks to 11 aircraft carriers. Who knew peace was so easy.
- 2y ago
- anon291 2y agoGood. As the war in Ukraine shows.. the best guarantor of peace is a large stockpile of weapons. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
- jmprspret 2y agoSo if I go and work for Iran's missile program it's fair game then right? Best guarantor of peace is their large stockpile of weapons too.
- chii 2y agoit's not fair game if you're working for a nation that openly calls for the destruction of your own. The name for it is treason.
- adrianN 2y agoMaybe the commenter you’re replying to is from Iran.
- jmprspret 2y agoMaybe I'm from Iran. Maybe not. Maybe I'm from a country that Iran doesn't call for the destruction of. It's hypothetical. Let's say hypothetically, I'm not committing treason, I'm just building missiles for Iran - helping to guarantee peace by stockpiling weapons! It's for peace, after all.
- anon291 2y agoIf you're from Iran, and support the current regime, and want peace in Iran and the status quo, then getting nuclear weapons is basically a guarantee of that.
- boffinAudio 2y agoThere are literally zero nations currently involved in hostilities which don't want to destroy each other. You may not like it, but the USA has called for Irans' destruction a hundred times. Its treasonous to the human race to continue to call for the destruction of sovereign nations who don't align 100% with the purposes of ones own nation...
- benreesman 2y agoAre you going to go with the inevitable Anduril fork of nixpkgs?
- thrill 2y agoSaving taxpayer money in meeting the Constitutional requirements to provide for the Nation's defense is a noble effort, especially seeing as the likely threats are going to be cheap and reasonably effective in a generally permissive environment, a'la Ukraine's lopsided offensive capability vs. Russian ships. Your target cost of $300K is so significantly less than current available munitions that I'm curious what you intend to use to, from what I know from my own experience (I was a very early hire on an aircraft development called the Javelin some years ago), to reduce the cost of small propulsion systems. The FJ-33 we were going to use was around $400K each at the time, and Google tells me it's still around that price. Their effort to build the cheaper FJ-22 was abandoned after we blew one up on the test stand. I don't keep up with propulsion any longer, but I'm curious what you think might replace them in the (guessing) $100K range.
- hcfman 2y ago[flagged]
- cameldrv 2y agoThere is a Czech engine called the PBS TJ-100 that I’ve seen used on some jet powered gliders. It’s about 290 lbs of thrust and retails for $75k. There is also an uprated version, the PBS TJ-150 that’s about 340 lbs. I think that would be enough for an antiship missile with a smaller warhead like they’re building.
- jojobas 2y agoIs there any reason not to use much cheaper piston engines? If you're going for saturation of and defenses you don't need speed that much, you only need the ability to hit the target if not shot down.
- zakary 2y agoI imagine speed and simplicity. There’s a lot more things that need maintenance on a piston engine
- heyitsguay 2y agoIt's very disappointing that we're at a point in time where this is important, but it is important. War is awful but ceding the western alliance, for all its flaws, to authoritarianism is far worse. Do what is right morally first, and for your business second, and good luck crossing the valley of death ;)
- hcfman 2y agoThe West is just another form of authoritarianism. Maybe you haven’t encountered it but other people have.
- twoWhlsGud 2y agoTry making that argument on the other side and come back and report how well it goes afterwards...
- adrianN 2y agoIn soviet Russia you were completely free to express your negative opinion about the government, as long as it was the government of the United States.
- shashanoid 2y agoHow is PG okay with this? LOL war with China.. the founder is Chinese.
- someperson 2y agoPG retweeted it: https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1826069657339703346 https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1826069657339703346 In a democratic multiethnic society you shouldn't question the allegiances of people -- see the history of McCarthyism in the 1950s, or before that Japanese internment, and before that the anti-German sentiment. And not that it matters, but the name Tseng uses Wade-Giles romanization which is not used in China anymore. This indicates the founder may be of Taiwanese heritage. The Pinyin romanization of that name is "Zeng".
- jojobas 2y ago>In a democratic multiethnic society you shouldn't question the allegiances of people Oh yes you should. In this case the founder's allegiance survives scrutiny, but it doesn't mean you should forgo vetting or pretend one's origin has nothing to do with his possible motivation to betray.
- KMag 2y agoTaiwanese or the family having emigrated from mainland China prior to the PRC adopting pinyin (which includes possibly prior to the Chinese civil war).
- janalsncm 2y agoAs far as I can tell both founders are American, not Chinese.
- someperson 2y agoGreat work to the team! You're doing vital work. Hopefully you won't let the anti-defence industry voices get you down An efficient and effective defence industry is vital to protect democracy.
- robotnikman 2y agoIs this the same company or related to Ares inc, the company that made the 75mm autocannon for the HSTV-L? An insane amount of engineering went into that cannon.
- proshno 2y ago[dead]
- baron816 2y agoI’ve been watching a lot of these war game simulations https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL https://youtu.be/vSnbbifpiLw?si=d-ymKHwfnwdKoGOL. They have a lot of limitations to them, and they’re engineered to be entertaining first and foremost (it is YouTube), but they can be very informative too about the state of naval warfare. Some things I’ve learned from watching these: 1) Shooting down anti-ship missiles is very doable, even hypersonic and stealth missiles. A naval carrier group is pretty much invulnerable to any single weapon that exists today. However, they do have a limit to how many defensive SAMs they can carry. So firing hundreds of anti-ship missiles will overwhelm their defenses and eventually sink that $15 billion carrier with 4,000 people on board. 2) The British Navy’s upcoming strategy seems to be using large numbers of small anti-ship missiles that use AI to target critical systems of the ships they target (rather than just trying to sink the ship). This actually looks like it should be really effective since they can disable enemy ships or at least exhaust the defenders’ defenses before firing ship-killers at them. Another thing I want to note: we really really really don’t want to go to war with China, and China doesn’t want that either. I think China would only try to take Taiwan if they knew two things: 1) they could take and hold Taiwan 2) they could exact such a heavy toll on American forces trying to defend Taiwan that the US would not want to get involved. Taking Taiwan is probably not worth it if the US fights. China needs to convince the US it’s not worth defending Taiwan. It is a form of Prisoner’s Dilemma.
- dmix 2y agoThat plus spamming small sea based submarine kamikaze drones will eventually penetrate. I wonder if there will be some large scale autonomous mini torpedo or mine systems that works against small highly mobile drone ships. Similar to how the old WW2 systems shot out mines from the ship but not putting the wider carrier group at risk of blue on blue. Edit: also +1 grim reapers YT channel. It really demonstrates the capability of Chinese anti air (on paper) and advanced long range missiles. Would be a very very scary conflict for pilots and navy sailors.
- baron816 2y agoI’ve been thinking: drone subs that could sit at the bottom of the ocean and then surface to fire anti-ship missiles. Essentially this https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 https://youtu.be/hMBICD5rgY0?si=IXalKjfvs0pSL5B6 Imagine launching hundreds of these from the US or Japan and then they just camp at the bottom of the East China Sea. If tensions escalate, they can migrate towards the Taiwan Strait. And then, emerge potentially just hundreds of meters away from corvettes and landing vessels, fire off their missiles and then submerge.
- cm2012 2y agoI'm so glad to see YC fund this. US defense spending is the lowest as a percent of GDP that it's been in 50+ years. We need innovative solutions for the end of Pax Americana.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- botanical 2y agoThe biggest bully on the world stage is the United States. I'm no fan of Russia or China, but they aren't in conflict with the US. If anything, the military industrial complex that the US bolsters, is the reason for conflict around the world; the US government buys from private US companies with tax money, which it then donates to states like Apartheid Israel to commit genocide. There's no defence with the US, only death, terror and destruction. The fact that YC is supporting this is reprehensible.
- deepsun 2y agoRussian propaganda says exactly that. And surprisingly some do believe it. Like it's US attacked Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.
- konart 2y ago>Like it's US attacked Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova. ... Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoYou might want to read up on the start of the Korean War. Note who invaded whom. It wasn't the US starting a fight. Vietnam was a mess, but the US wasn't trying to conquer North Vietnam - just to defend South Vietnam. Again, not US aggression. Iraq I will give you.
- text0404 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- deepsun 2y agoIraq is also not that clear. Iraq was very aggressive state at that time in its region. It was required (by UN, not US) to destroy and stop producing WMD they had (chemical weapons), AND prove that they do that. And UN Security Council resolutions (dated 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002, total 15 resolutions) clearly stated that failure to do so that may bring another war. Instead, Saddam actively prevented UN observers to their factories and made it all look like they continue producing WMDs. He refused to cooperate with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, and lied a lot. And man they did it before. Iraq officially confirmed producing 8500 liters of anthrax (UN commission suspected up to 25000 liters). In total, Iraq produced 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxins, 8,500 liters of concentrated anthrax, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin. Iraq conducted field tests of Bacillus subtilis (anthrax stimulant), botulinum toxins, and aflatoxins. Iraq also tested the delivery of biological agents by a variety of delivery systems, including rockets, bombs, and aerial dispersal. In December 1990, Iraq loaded 100 R-400 bombs with botulinum toxins, 50 bombs with anthrax, and 16 with aflatoxins; at the same time, 13 SCUD missile warheads were loaded with botulinum toxins, 10 with anthrax, and two warheads with aflatoxins. In total, 10,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxins, 6,500 liters of concentrated anthrax, and 1,580 liters of aflatoxin were loaded into the munitions. Iraq also produced 3,080 tons of mustard gas, 250 tons of tabun, and 812 tons of sarin. The bulk of these weapons were used in the war against Iran and gas attacks on the Kurds; the exact amounts of chemical weapons remaining are unknown. Thus, according to initial Iraqi claims, Iraq produced 240 kg of VX, according to later Iraqi claims - 3.9 tons, according to UNSCOM estimates - up to 200 tons; while Iraq denied that VX was loaded into the carriers, UNSCOM found traces of VX in the warhead fragments of Iraqi missiles. In 2004, Iraqi munitions containing binary sarin and cyclosarin were also found. PS: I still think US was wrong invading Iraq before securing where its all stored, Saddam made a very effective provocation. And US did not conduct any "referendums" to make Iraq a US state, like Russia did in Crimea. And who knows, maybe there are still WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq, it's a big country.
- guywithahat 2y agoReally cool company and project! I will say though your contact page on your website is broken; there's nowhere to enter information, all you can do is submit an email and phone number with no content.
- hcfman 2y agoSo if I read this correctly, nothing would make the fuckers from this company happier than if everyone could go to war with China as well. What a bunch of sick people, gunning for the destruction of humanity.
- boxed 2y agoPutting your head in the sand is not a good foreign policy strategy.
- Culonavirus 2y ago[flagged]
- bigiain 2y agoIn the final stage of their enshittification playbook, they'll be the ones starting the wars...
- throwaway48540 2y agoHow do you deter an opponent from attacking if you don't have adequate weapons?
- throwawaysleep 2y agoFor weapons to be useful, especially complicated weapons, they need to be purchased in advance of a war. They only profit from the belief there may be a war.
- Havoc 2y agoThat’s always been the military industrial complex. Core part of US economy and Not unique to these guys.
- EasyMark 2y agoSo you just bury your head in the sand and let China do whatever they like in the South China Sea against much smaller nations like Taiwan, the Philippines, etc? I’m one of those people who thinks if someone is proposing a radical change they should at least own what happens when the status quo is changed. I for one think it would be a disaster if the US looked purely inwardly while China and Russia bulldoze their neighbors.
- RomanPushkin 2y agoIf you're pro-war and support this kind of shit, you should know that every fight has two possible outcomes: you can win and you can lose. This is the same reason you don't wanna be a police officer or go to the military if you're not ready to die. After all the pain people have experienced in eastern Europe, Gaza, Middle East, it's sad to see this has been funded by YC. It's pretty obvious it's the same "defense" system as AK-47. While it's easy to justify, it will be used, highly likely, to kill people.
- BobbyJo 2y agoI'm anti-war, strongly so, and I support this.
- LorenPechtel 2y agoNo. The primary job of weapons is deterrence. If a weapon is used it's already failed in it's primary mission. Most military weapons will be built and sit somewhere until they reach the end of their shelf life.
- Devasta 2y agoIt's so on brand for YCombinator to look at all the problems facing the world and finding that the issue that needs fixing is that destroying hospitals in the middle east could be cheaper. I hope everyone involved is rewarded as handsomely as Perilaus was.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoThey are building long range anti-ship missiles. That’s not going to help much to strike land based targets which can already be destroyed with much cheaper means anyway. War in Ukraine showed that there was both a need and a gap in the ability to produce this type of weapon cheaply and fast enough. Unless you somehow have a way to stop expansionist authoritarian states to wage wars on the US allies, I would personally tone down the preachy judgemental attitude towards the defence industry. But that’s me.
- Devasta 2y ago[flagged]
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoI return the suggestion to you. > The US has plenty of weapons to give Ukraine No and Europe even less so. The production capacity is simply not there especially in the price/capacity range which would be useful for Ukraine. That’s one of the reason which motivated Russia to attack. They think they will win the war of attrition and we might be one Trump victory away from that becoming true. > Palestinian schoolchildren instead Your efforts are misplaced. The issue here is the USA blind support to Israel not its weapon manufacturing capacity.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoAres is not making rockets for Palestinians to use.
- hcfman 2y ago[flagged]
- rationalfaith 2y ago[dead]
- iamacyborg 2y agoI realise there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza, but not everything is about it.
- throwawaysleep 2y agoIf destroying Gaza was the goal, it could be done far more cheaply with dumb bombs or artillery barrages of old weapons. The use of weapons that can be substantially aimed is evidence that destroying Gaza isn’t the goal and we are expending billions of dollars to reduce casualties.
- squidbeak 2y agoThe Israelis have heavily used JDAMs in Gaza, a weapon 'substantially aimable' but whose payload is too big to contain to its target.
- dunekid 2y agoPerfect weapon for a Genocide. Always tout that there were Terrorists, but take out upto a 100 people. Perfect. Ofcourse the powers that be will have to allow it, And send those weapons in the first place.
- jmprspret 2y agoDestroying Gaza itself is not the goal. It's destroying the people that's the goal. So that other people can occupy that land. And that is being accomplished with old, new, weapons, and with the "weapon" of withholding aid as well.
- boffinAudio 2y ago
- keiferski 2y agoI have been reading a number of books about Eisenhower recently, in preparation for writing a long form post about his decision making process. One of the recurring themes throughout his presidency was the conflict between the former Supreme Commander, who quite literally ordered thousands of men into battle and their deaths, that wanted to work toward some kind of peace and de-escalation with the Soviets with regards to nuclear weapons – and the military-industrial-political complex that pushed and pushed him to fund more weapons without any restrictions on the budget or geopolitical implications. Eisenhower of course was no fool and didn’t disregard the need for weapons, but he generally tried to navigate the narrow path between defending oneself and escalating an arms race. One of the takeaways I had from this was essentially how powerless even the president was in pushing back against the arms race, even against his own people. This of course culminated in his famous farewell speech where he coined the term MIC. In any case, if the dynamics of these kinds of companies interest you, I cannot recommend reading about Eisenhower’s presidency enough. There was actually a situation with Taiwan that is still quite relevant to today. And I truly hope, but unfortunately doubt, that equivalent amounts of money are being put into startups or organizations that help solve, diffuse, and de-escalate conflicts.
- adrianN 2y agoIt was my understanding that the Soviet Union collapsed in part because they couldn’t afford the arms race anymore.
- keiferski 2y agoI’m not an expert in any way on this, but my impression from reading maybe half a dozen books involving the Soviets + living in a former Soviet-occupied country is that the USSR simply wasn’t ever going to work sociopolitically by nature of its multi-nation imperial structure. The client states were never really assimilated and didn’t want to be - and the relationship with them was hostile from the start - see the lack of help during the Warsaw Uprising, Hungarian Revolution in 1957, Prague in 1968, etc. So my impression is that the USSR would inevitably collapse and it was mostly just a matter of time. The arms race definitely had an effect on the Soviet economy, but I don’t think it’s correct to say that was the main reason for the collapse.
- maxglute 2y agoIt's a start. CCTV7 (PRC military channel) released footage of automated PLA cruise missile component gigafactory last october capable of making 1000 components a day, insinuating scale of their smart munition acquisition. Which is to say a few days of production can satuate existing US+co missile defenses in 1IC, assuming typical 1500km cruise missile range, US can literally move every land missile interception system produced and stuff every VLS cell of existing USN hulls with anti missile defense in theatre, and PLA cruise missile gigafactory going brrrt will saturate with a few weeks of production. Which is to say, they're indicating they can build so much cruise missiles, likely cheaper than ARES, that US + co simply don't have capability to preposition enough hardware to survive in attrition game. That said, doubt ARES can out compete PRC... on industrial output. Obviously an effort has to be made to increase munitions production, but I doubt ARES can do it for 10x smaller / 10x cheaper. IMO focusing on antiship is misguided, there's plenty of advanced munitions to sink limited PLAN ships, the problem is PLA has enough land based fires to probably destroy most of US+co hardware in theatre with spares. IMO there's this misconception that destroying PLA navy will somehow stop PRC war efforts, when bulk of PLA fires is largely land based (magnitude more than naval fires), including eventually proliferating prompt conventional global strike to hit CONUS, at which point no US hardware is really save. Ultimately, PRC will gladly trade PLAN for USN... since US global security architecture breaks down without navy, and that 600x ship building advantage is going to help PRC reconstitute faster. The actual US+co ordnance deficit is munitions for hitting PRC mainland, to take out PLA landbased fires, realistically can't cut much on size because 1IC deployment either means ships outside of PRC A2D2 range, or on land (likely limited to JP/PH) which means 1000km range just to reach PRC coast and 500-1000km more to hit interior sites. Unless you include SKR, but they're not that suicidal. Which means need something size of existing cruise missiles, if not larger. And depending on how it's deployed (i.e. on ship/airplane), the hardware has to be relatively over engineered to survive the logistics chain of being forward deployed (i.e. mechanical vibration / salt air). PRC's advantage is they can produce magnitude more munitions + with less demanding deployment + a lot more room to deploy launchers (most of mainland) vs US with limited deployment regions. This is without mentioning modern anti air has nearly 100% interception rate on subsonic munitions. Question is going to be, can AREs make more cheaper cruise missiles than PRC can make interceptors. At which point it might be more cost effective to focus economizing higher end munitions. Remember it COSTS a lot in man power + logistics to just sustain deployment. Maybe this will be comboed with many autonomous launch platforms... but that's when you run into deployment geopolitics, i.e. JP citizens aren't going to like (or likely allow) 1000s of launchers dispersed on their roads for survivability, and you can only fit so much on Okinawa/Luzon. There's a lot of constraints to US trying to win the numbers game in both production and deployment vs PRC, but at the same time, peer power attrition warfare is a numbres game. All that said, zero interest rate era is over. Tech needs to beg for defense money now. Expect more of this going forward, and who knows, maybe it'll disrupt defense aquisitions for the better.
- perlgeek 2y agoHonest question: does building low-cost cruise missiles use microchips or other parts produced in China? Or, maybe in Taiwan, or any other country that would probably stop shipping parts after such a war (involving China and the US, most likely also Taiwan) breaks out? Either due to the industry being damaged, or to avoid retaliation from China?
- sgt 2y agoAgreed, their long term roadmap should enforce domestically produced microchips only, with minimal dependency on anything abroad.
- _xnmw 2y ago“Defense tech” should not be a capitalist for-profit venture. The incentives are all wrong. The business model is basically “milk the government for as much money as you can get, over the longest possible time period”, which is never a good business model for incentivizing efficiency or innovation. That is how American defense manufacturing got so slow and costly. It’s why America struggles to produce something as simple as cheap artillery shells at scale: simply not profitable enough. Much more profitable to sell fancy tech at $3m a pop.
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoThe cognitive dissonance here is outrageous - people whos ideas ruled the world without great disruption ever since the cold war ended, offended by the idea the bloody mess these ideas helped to built and these weapons aim to solve, is somehow not there responsibility. Own your results people! If your ideas and ideologies arm and support blood thirsty dictatorships and they do bloodthirsty dictatorship things. Thats on you! Thats what you aimed to do. Not making the world a better place! More like making the world a better place for Nod!
- curtisblaine 2y agoQuestion: how does a software developer enter this industry? For pretty much all other industries it's easy to find documentation / examples / open source software, but obviously the war industry is much more secretive. What are good resources to get an idea of the industry from a developer perspective?
- euroderf 2y agoTo a first approximation, in defense work you dot your i's and cross your t's, not so in commercial. My 0,02€, ymmv.
- TrackerFF 2y ago1) Get a relevant education (software engineering, electrical/electronics engineering, control engineering, math and physics, etc.) 2) Apply for a job either with contractors (Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.) or go directly to the state/military. That's about it. You'll have to get a security clearance, but other than that it's very much a standard A4 type of job. Possibly lots of travel, though. Source: I worked two years in the industry.
- hoofhearted 2y agoBuild up your experience with Java, Spring Boot, MySql, Angular, React, and AWS; and build up your LinkedIn profile with these said skills until the recruiters for government contractors start messaging you. To get into the cool defense/offense projects, you’ve got to get an offer on a project that is classified as secret/top secret with full scope poly. There are a ton of TS jobs out there for hire right now; unfortunately you have to find a contractor who is willing to pay the fee and sponsor you on a new clearance. Finding someone who will sponsor you right now is difficult for some reason; but once you get one, you have a ton of leverage within the government contracting space.
- achempion 2y agoI didn’t expect YC to start investing in destruction weapons
- jl6 2y agoThe ethical considerations depend on who you are building weapons for. A state with noble goals is better equipped to pursue those noble goals if they are well defended. A state with malign intentions is better equipped to inflict those intentions if they are well armed. Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to detect who are the good guys and who are the bad guys (but sometimes it is!).
- yetihehe 2y agoAnd it's not always static, today's good guys can do bad things tomorrow. Or even do bad things and good things in different places at the same time.
- omnee 2y agoThe Russian invasion of Ukraine has made it clear to the strategic planners the obvious; that peer or near peer warfare is one of industry and attrition (which it always has been). So while we may all, and should dislike war, it is ever more important to have our defence fully prepared for modern warfare.
- htrp 2y agoSlaughterbots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU) wasn't supposed to be a blueprint
- egorfine 2y agoAs a ukrainian, this makes me want to puke. We, Ukraine, had the historical chance to become a leading world manufacturer of practical and cheap military tech. We have the vast engineering talent. We have the institutional memory. We have the need. We have the motivation. The government would want to purchase this. We did produce exactly zero technology. This, guys, is what corruption does to a state. It's a cancer that paralyzes the society even in face of immediate deadly threat. So, my best wishes for Ares Industries and I mean it from the depth of my heart. Please produce this cruise missile and I sincerely hope we will never have to use it.
- wortelefant 2y agoWeapon production is something any country wants to build up domestically, otherwise the country wher3 the producer is situated can impose restrictions and political pressure - see the limits the US sets for use of US weapons or the German denial of Taurus deliveries, or the swiss refusal to give ammunition for air defense to ukraine
- egorfine 2y agoTo be fair, that Swiss decision was completely reasonable. The systems they were scrapping were old, unmaintained and not produced anymore. It made no sense to invest time and resource to teach a lot of ukrainian air defenders in order to then launch a small limited amount of missiles and then scrap the system anyway.
- nic547 2y agoI think by swiss ammo the parent comment refered to the 35mm ammo for the Gepard Air Defence System owned by the German Armed Forces that was produced by Rheinmetal (but in Switzerland) that had to remain in Germany. AFAIK the Gepards are still in use in Ukraine, but Rheinmetal is now producing the ammo in Germany rather than using the former Oerlikon-Facilities in Switzerland.
- egorfine 2y ago
- energy123 2y agoThis is much needed to deter an invasion of Taiwan, and to defeat the PLAN if they decide to do it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Havoc 2y agoThe premise here feels wrong. Yes Ukraine changed thinking on cost of munitions but trading an expensive missile for a ship is still a good trade. Cheaper would be better sure but it’s not as compelling as presented
- squidbeak 2y agoCheaper missiles can be deployed en masse with the aim of overloading defences. They don't make more expensive missiles obsolete, they're a key complementary weapon for the era of swarm warfare.
- kikoreis 2y agoWhat could go wrong?
- TrackerFF 2y agoHaving worked in the defense industry, in a sector directly related to missiles, I can see their argument - to rather focus on more small missiles, than one large. But my experience was that some big reason for ballooning costs were: - So, so many middlemen. - "Defense" premium pricing on everything due to things needing to meet custom specs, and vendors knowing that they can charge extra because it comes out of the defense budget. - Projects always being longer than planned. I don't think I ever worked on anything that met its deadline, and it was after that things started to get expensive. - Extreme hierarchy, all decisions and negotiations have to traverse through the hierarchy. - It is the polar opposite of "move fast and break things". We once had a contractor engineer fix a small superficial bug, which took him 5 mins to identify and one line of code to fix - when his manager found out, the bug fix was reversed, and added to the list of bugs. It took around 12 months before the bug was fixed again (exact same solution, of course). Did I mentioned all the middlemen? It's honestly like the insurance industry. Things that could have been affordable, simply aren't, because there are so many levels and layers of expenses. Everyone wants a cut.
- bboygravity 2y agoWhat's the barrier to entry in your opinion? My train of thought: if SpaceX can make payload to orbit 10 to 100x cheaper, would something similar be possible for cost reductions (and thus market share) in the apparently insanely inefficient defense industry?
- nradov 2y agoThe barrier to entry is lack of an existential threat. The USA faces no real threats to the homeland and the military budget, while large, is still affordable. So cost effectiveness and efficiency isn't a major priority. Whereas Ukraine has had to get creative with cheap drones and improvised cruise missiles in order to survive.
- TrackerFF 2y agoSpaceX make/made things affordable because everything they use is cheap, and have rather focused on an iterative approach. Whereas traditional starships have used expensive materials and astronomical R&D costs, to make sure everything is _perfect_ prior to launch - SpaceX did it the other way. Use good engineering and build the best you can with the cheapest material possible, and start launching stuff ASAP to see where things fail, and then iterate. They also built on existing tech, and saved a bunch there - compared to building something entirely from the scratch, and having to commit to something very early on (even though it might not be optimal in the long run). With defense you'll have to build stuff that works flawlessly, spend a fortune on design and testing, build products which can be stored for decades (and used decades later), buy parts and materials which meet the specs to endure all that. Economy of scale doesn't really apply to cruise missiles. But their (Ares) thesis is that they can bring down costs by making smaller but more cruise missiles, which will yield the same force as the fewer but larger cruise missiles.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoIsn't Ares Arms one of the evil megacorps in Shadowrun?
- mdeeks 2y agoYes. One of my favorite SNES games. Anyway it's just a name. I'm glad we're investing here. War is horrible, but unfortunately a fact of life. I'd prefer we deter the next one, or win it when it inevitability comes.
- dangsofwar 2y ago[flagged]
- lamontcg 2y agoThey should really work on homebrew cruise missiles for Ukraine. Constructing backyard pulsejet engines with nothing more than common welding and CNC machines and strapping an explosive payload to them with a mass-produced jamming-resistant guidance module.
- miah_ 2y agoAbsolutely disgusting.
- carabiner 2y agoWhy was this flagged?