The Serhii FLASH | Pro tekhnolohiyi [About technology] Telegram channel: One of the questions I am often asked is: "In modern warfare, what is more important—the sophistication of weaponry or its sheer quantity?" I will attempt to share my perspective on this, drawing on examples from the current war. Please note that I am not referring to special operations or minor, localized conflicts; rather, I am speaking about large-scale, full-scale wars. Reconnaissance UAVs play a crucial role on the frontlines. In the early years of the war, our adversary made extensive use of "Zala," "Supercam," and "Orlan" drones. At a certain point, however, they decided that deploying 50 inexpensive "Molniya" UAVs would be more effective than using a single "Zala" reconnaissance drone. While the "Molniya" is undoubtedly inferior to the "Zala" or "Supercam" in terms of technical specifications, it ultimately delivers greater utility. In fact, the low-cost, rudimentary "Molniya" has become the backbone of the enemy’s medium-range strike drone fleet. Here, the advantage is gained through sheer numbers. Consider also the example of low-cost interceptors used against "Shahed" drones. Instead of developing expensive interceptor drones, we opted for a concept involving tens of thousands of inexpensive, relatively low-tech P-1 Sun and Sting drones, which we deployed across the entire country to secure the skies against gasoline-powered "Shaheds" [piston-engined Geran-2]. It was precisely this low cost and mass availability that allowed us to cover the whole nation. Another example comes from a different domain: electronic warfare (EW) on the frontlines. Since the very first day of the war, both Ukraine and Russia have been flooding the frontlines with cheap, primitive equipment built using Chinese jamming modules. Russia claims to be the world’s leading power in EW, yet it produces no high-end, high-tech EW systems for use in the trenches. It is now clear that the enemy intends to focus on the segment of low-cost cruise missiles. Since our air defense systems intercept nearly all incoming cruise missiles, why spend vast sums on expensive ones? Instead of a single Kalibr missile, they can manufacture and launch 20 Banderol missiles. Rather than relying on the expensive, specialized military-grade "Azart" radio systems, the Russian army is saturating the front lines with cheap Chinese DMR radios. For the cost of one "Azart" unit, they can purchase... 200 to 300 radios from China. While certainly inferior, these units are sufficient to maintain basic communications. Across various technological domains, there is a clear preference for mass quantity over high-tech sophistication. This is partly because complex military development requires both engineering capacity and time—resources that are currently unavailable. It is far more effective to rapidly produce simple, mass-produced equipment for the battlefield than to spend years on development. When I see $10 million tanks on display at military exhibitions, I immediately imagine how five $300 drones could stop them. If five don’t stop them, then 20 will. Mass numbers and simplicity will triumph over technology. Several high-ranking military officials from small European countries have told me: "We aren't afraid of ground operations; what we fear is that 5,000 cheap, primitive attack drones could overwhelm our air defenses and tear our entire country apart." However, it is certainly impossible to do without technology and development altogether. Progress is the engine of war. Yet, when developing and creating new products, one must understand that they need to be inexpensive, capable of rapid production, and scalable.