That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.
Logistically? No.
High-tech equipment is more expensive to maintain.
Take a look at the maintainance costs of the high-tech airplanes and manhours required, the flight time/maintiance time ratio and compare it to older planes. The F35 needs something like 2 hours of maintainance for every flight hour.
Compare it to more robust and reliable oldies like the F-14, F-15 and F-16.. or the A-10. No comparison.
The general rule is: high-tech = expensive, demanding.
The F-35 is the peak of the iceberg, ever heard about the Boeing V-22 Osprey?
Spoiler

70 Milion dollarinos each, overhaul of just three of these was just about another 70 million, the fun thing being pretty much every single Osprey in service has a unique configuration down to the mechanical level too.
It's said that for every hour of actual mission flight, the Osprey sits another 12 hours in the maintenance bay.
It's been in service for more than a dozen years and the US still has
not figured out how to keep sand and dirt from clogging its tilting engines. Wikipedia also states that some officials got fired because they falsified the maintenance costs of the tilt-rotor helicopter to make it seem more viable. Hilarious stuff.
...Anyway. I just wanted to add that
the core concept of this thread is sound. Low Tech should not be as expensive to maintain or even repair compared to either Midline or High Tech.
That said, reducing Low Tech maintenance is but the first step to making low tech viable. Straying from what's already been said in a suggestion (discussion, really) thread I made, the game hands out way too much free money even in early game for either midline or High tech to be bothered much, if at all.
Vanilla could take a sizeable page off of the modiverse and do one nifty change to maintenance costs, Combat readiness recovery and combat-related repairs. Keep in mind I'm more or less spitballing and
the numbers may not be optimal.
Midline would see no changes, since the components required for overall maintenace are neither rare or overly abdundant
Low Tech has an overabdundance of components making both combat damage repairs and routine maintenance significantly less resource intensive than other design philosophies, therefore reducing monthly maintenance costs by 50%, Combat Readiness Recovery costs and repair costs by 30%
High Tech uses bleeding edge equipment making long term maintenance without specialized hangars very costly. The base monthly maintenance of these ships is significantly higher than their peers, but it will get even worse the longer the fleet does not have access to a planet-based bay, up to +50% in monthly maintenance. Combat readiness recovery and combat-related repairs not only take 30% longer due to the need of specialized personell and delicate machinery, but they also will become more expensive as time away from a colony passes just as monthly maintenance.
These suggestions do not take in account the fact High tech and Midline already lose more Combat Readiness per deployment than Low tech in general, a more carefully crafted suggestion that this one
may have to take those into account.