4 ms·

> I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts. Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you

by Aeolun 1y ago

> I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts. Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you’d want to use a significant number of them? Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.

germinalphrase 1y ago
“ Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.” Why do you think that’s the reason for these high prices rather than, say, lack of competition?
- nradov 1y ago
  Those contracts are put out for competitive bids. Profit margins for defense contractors aren't very high. The prices are driven by a combination of strict requirements, lack of economies of scale, and legal compliance with government mandated processes.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    Why, yes, competition has been stifled like 30 years ago, because the US was dominating the world anyway, or so the administration was thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(defense_industry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(defense_industry)
    - nradov 1y ago
      Consolidation of defense prime contractors was inevitable due to budgetary realities and the escalating complexity of major programs. It's unlikely that keeping a bunch of small, weak companies around would have produced better results for the military or taxpayers.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  No economy of scale. The cost to build one car is ~$100 million. The cost to build the second one is ~$20K. The only reason you can buy a car for $40K is because they build millions of them to spread the initial investment. The military buys missiles in units of 100s and there are no other buyers, so the cost per missile is massive.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I am sure there are more buyers, or would be. :P
bell-cot 1y ago
If the defense contractors figured they could get away with those costs, at higher volume? Hell, yes. If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no. History: The not-even-yet-the-U.S.A. set up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory in 1777, to manufacture military ammumition. And the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard in 1799.
- nradov 1y ago
  Unlikely. The complexity of major defense programs has increased by orders of magnitude since WWII. Running a small-arms ammunition factory is one thing, but the notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical.
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    > ... notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical. The small-arms ammo was just their MVP for 1777. By the late 1950's, the government was building stuff like this in it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) shipyard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Navy_Yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Navy_Yard I'm thinking that a Tomahawk has rather fewer parts, from fewer subcontractors, than a >60,000-ton aircraft carrier. And doesn't take multiple years of continuous work to build, either.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Nah. The complete Tomahawk weapons system is far more complex than a WWII era aircraft carrier. Beyond the missile itself there's an "iceberg" under the surface. The software alone is huge and requires major ongoing work from several defense contractors covering multiple embedded systems, mission planning, telemetry, launch platform integration (multiple different classes of surface ships and submarines, plus now ground launchers again), testing, etc. Plus customized builds for each of the export customers. You probably have no idea what actually goes into making this all work with an extremely high level of reliability.
nine_k 1y ago
Speaking of Javelin missiles, mentioned upthread. In 2022, when the war in Ukraine erupted, the small stock of Javelins which the NATO countries were able to provide was spent in like first several months. After that, $300 drones carrying a $1000 armor-piercing round started to dominate the battlefield, leading to terrible losses in Russian armor, especially the newest and most expensive tanks. Similarly, having lost a number of advanced and expensive aircraft, and watching advanced and expensive cruise missiles mostly shot down during airstrikes, Russian forces turned to expendable drones imported from Iran (!) and expendable rockets imported from North Korea (!!). In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.
- nindalf 1y ago
  It’s interesting to see both kinds of drones in Ukraine as well. Ukrainian drones are built for €300 or so and they’re staggeringly effective. “Western” drones as made by Helsing and other companies cost several thousand. While they may have more features, it’s not clear that they’re doing 10x more damage than the Ukrainian ones. Ukraine plans to buy 4.5 drones in 2025. They’re definitely going with volume over software features. Further they’re allowing frontline drone regiments to earn “points” based on kills and using the points to buy their own drones instead of allocating them top down. The regiments appear to be favouring the cheap drones over expensive ones like the Helsing HF-1. What’s interesting is that European governments are probably going to end up buying tens of thousands of the expensive drones because the laundry list of features, rather than investing in true mass production like the Ukrainians have. Going the Protoss way, rather than Zerg.
  - oneshtein 1y ago
    €300 drones are anti-personal ones. They unable to penetrate tank armor except when tank is abandoned and sits open. Drones in current generation are 10x more expensive even when produced in Ukraine.
  - 1y ago

by Aeolun 1y ago

germinalphrase 1y ago

“ Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.” Why do you think that’s the reason for these high prices rather than, say, lack of competition?

nradov 1y ago
Those contracts are put out for competitive bids. Profit margins for defense contractors aren't very high. The prices are driven by a combination of strict requirements, lack of economies of scale, and legal compliance with government mandated processes.
- nine_k 1y ago
  Why, yes, competition has been stifled like 30 years ago, because the US was dominating the world anyway, or so the administration was thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(defense_industry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(defense_industry)
  - nradov 1y ago
    Consolidation of defense prime contractors was inevitable due to budgetary realities and the escalating complexity of major programs. It's unlikely that keeping a bunch of small, weak companies around would have produced better results for the military or taxpayers.
terminalshort 1y ago
No economy of scale. The cost to build one car is ~$100 million. The cost to build the second one is ~$20K. The only reason you can buy a car for $40K is because they build millions of them to spread the initial investment. The military buys missiles in units of 100s and there are no other buyers, so the cost per missile is massive.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  I am sure there are more buyers, or would be. :P

bell-cot 1y ago

If the defense contractors figured they could get away with those costs, at higher volume? Hell, yes. If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no. History: The not-even-yet-the-U.S.A. set up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory in 1777, to manufacture military ammumition. And the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard in 1799.

nradov 1y ago
Unlikely. The complexity of major defense programs has increased by orders of magnitude since WWII. Running a small-arms ammunition factory is one thing, but the notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > ... notion of the government acting as it's own prime contactor for something like the Tomahawk program is just absurd and totally impractical. The small-arms ammo was just their MVP for 1777. By the late 1950's, the government was building stuff like this in it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) shipyard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Navy_Yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Navy_Yard I'm thinking that a Tomahawk has rather fewer parts, from fewer subcontractors, than a >60,000-ton aircraft carrier. And doesn't take multiple years of continuous work to build, either.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Nah. The complete Tomahawk weapons system is far more complex than a WWII era aircraft carrier. Beyond the missile itself there's an "iceberg" under the surface. The software alone is huge and requires major ongoing work from several defense contractors covering multiple embedded systems, mission planning, telemetry, launch platform integration (multiple different classes of surface ships and submarines, plus now ground launchers again), testing, etc. Plus customized builds for each of the export customers. You probably have no idea what actually goes into making this all work with an extremely high level of reliability.

nine_k 1y ago

Speaking of Javelin missiles, mentioned upthread. In 2022, when the war in Ukraine erupted, the small stock of Javelins which the NATO countries were able to provide was spent in like first several months. After that, $300 drones carrying a $1000 armor-piercing round started to dominate the battlefield, leading to terrible losses in Russian armor, especially the newest and most expensive tanks. Similarly, having lost a number of advanced and expensive aircraft, and watching advanced and expensive cruise missiles mostly shot down during airstrikes, Russian forces turned to expendable drones imported from Iran (!) and expendable rockets imported from North Korea (!!). In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.

nindalf 1y ago
It’s interesting to see both kinds of drones in Ukraine as well. Ukrainian drones are built for €300 or so and they’re staggeringly effective. “Western” drones as made by Helsing and other companies cost several thousand. While they may have more features, it’s not clear that they’re doing 10x more damage than the Ukrainian ones. Ukraine plans to buy 4.5 drones in 2025. They’re definitely going with volume over software features. Further they’re allowing frontline drone regiments to earn “points” based on kills and using the points to buy their own drones instead of allocating them top down. The regiments appear to be favouring the cheap drones over expensive ones like the Helsing HF-1. What’s interesting is that European governments are probably going to end up buying tens of thousands of the expensive drones because the laundry list of features, rather than investing in true mass production like the Ukrainians have. Going the Protoss way, rather than Zerg.
- oneshtein 1y ago
  €300 drones are anti-personal ones. They unable to penetrate tank armor except when tank is abandoned and sits open. Drones in current generation are 10x more expensive even when produced in Ukraine.
- 1y ago