Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>> For example, tank platoons rely heavily on communication devices, and when those fail, I believe teams have not trained hard enough on the analog (hand and arm signals, flagging, IR signaling, etc.).

That's the change in the modern military. Having the communication system fail is the equivalent of having the main gun fail: you are no longer an effective fighter. The communication system should protected, hardened, and as reliable in combat as a soldier's rifle.

Air forces are at the front of this. There are countless mission-critical information systems for which there is no 'analogue' option. If the bomber doesn't have a data link with the spotter on the ground, the bombs are not dropped. If the IFF system on the helicopter isn't working, there is no takeoff. Technology is no longer a "nice to have" but an essential part of warfighting.

View on HN

Former Marine officer, disagree here that this is the change in the modern military. What you are describing is a major weakness of that type of air support.

Fighting certainly doesn't stop because you can't get comms with the bird. You just lose that as on option to deploy.

I think what gets abstracted away when people think about military operations is that it's not a chess board back at the Pentagon. They only are accomplished by physical deployment of force. You always plan for the back up contingencies because the mission still needs to get done if all the systems aren't online.

Long hard experience has taught us the way you make operations resilient is always know how to fall back on a physical signal like popping a smoke or sending up a flare.

--Perhaps that take is a bit too simplistic, so take it with a grain of salt from a ground combat element guy. I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working.

>> I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working.

Ya. Air Force and Navy are defined by their widgets. If the aircraft cannot fly, the air force cannot air force. If the ships don't float, the navy doesn't navy. That's the cultural difference. The army has trouble dealing with 100% reliance on anything. For pilots and sailors such reliance comes natually.

If the ships don't float, the navy doesn't navy.

But if the radio doesn’t work the Navy even today can fall back to light signals or even semaphore or flag codes. That’s the point, there isn’t just reliability, there is also redundancy.

If the tanks cannot tank, the army can’t army against a near-peer enemy either...

Are you trying to suggest that a ship without BVR comm is in any way, shape, or form an effective warfighting asset? Take away radios, radar, and satcomm and that ship just became nothing more than the USS Target.

> The communication system should protected, hardened, and as reliable in combat as a soldier's rifle.

And how are you going to archieve this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com