You have to shoot something to fight. Russia may demonstrate the extreme of this in their invasion of Ukraine, but it's true for everyone at war if the major combat operations don't end in a matter of weeks.
A company has developed what it says is a cheap, mass producable but effective cruise missile:
Does the U.S. military need the very best weapons money can buy—or the most cost-effective ones it can quickly build in quantity? As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine voraciously consumes munition supplies across the planet, many argue it’s time to tilt in the latter direction.
That's certainly what I believed prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine:
It will take a long time before the newest means of fighting are so integrated into military forces that they will be significant for even a long war.
Until then, the war will go on after the flashy weapons are expended. The best weapons will be reserved for priority targets while the rest will fight at lower tech levels with troops and civilians paying the price to make up for the lack of flashier weapons or high-value targets.
The newest stuff costs a lot and so will always be in short supply. By definition. They are decisive only in a short war. After that, you have to shoot something to fight.
So yes, cheap munitions are needed. More than two and a half years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is still having problems producing the needed basic 155mm artillery shells.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it.