4 ms·

Why revive stinger production instead of adopting something more modern, like starstreak or any of the other NATO manpads? Surely technology has come a long way

Why revive stinger production instead of adopting something more modern, like starstreak or any of the other NATO manpads? Surely technology has come a long way since the 80s. License the technology and build it at home.

aardvarkr 3y ago
Because it’s the American version of those and they have updated the design and tech throughout the years to keep up with the latest improvements. Just because it was first build in the 80’s doesn’t mean the design has been kept static.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  Yes, but the Starstreak has one big missile that releases 3 smaller missiles at mach 4. I get your point, but on the other hand, what about weird British missiles?
  - tyho 3y ago
    Starstreak is also impervious to flares.
    - jandrewrogers 3y ago
      Starstreak is impervious to flares because it requires a human to paint the target. Stingers are fire-and-forget, and modern versions use dual-mode IR and UV imagers that are impervious to flares.
- greedo 3y ago
  Other than a new proximity fuse, they really haven't updated the design much for a decade. Most of the upgrades have been to extend the service life of the missile, since most munitions have a Best Use By date...
jsiepkes 3y ago
If you switch to a different platform you will also have to change the way you do training, logistics, (field) maintenance, etc. That's going to be a hell of a project. So if you have something that works...
jandrewrogers 3y ago
US weapons are designed to be continuously upgraded with new technology as it becomes available. The current weapon carrying the Stinger name (FIM-92) is state-of-the-art and has more capable terminal guidance than MANPADS like Starstreak (which is a beam rider). The introduction date of US weapons has little bearing on their sophistication due to the Ship of Theseus upgrades, and most were a decade or two ahead of their counterparts when released anyway. Most can be upgraded or downgraded to a specific version/standard on demand. Downgrades are commonly done for export of US military inventory.
woobar 3y ago
Because most weapons programs are also jobs programs. The money spend on Stinger will stay in the USA.
- m3047 3y ago
  > jobs programs I believe that is the point, notiwthstanding that all jobs programs are not the same. Time for some baseball (my favorite analogy). If you want to preserve your ability to "play ball" "against the day": it's not enough to keep a stock of balls, gloves and bats. You have to be able to make gloves, balls and bats. You need suitable "dual use" fields, or a plan (and force) for rapidly converting fields for baseball use. But that's just the infrastructure. You need to preserve your ability to play ball. You can't just hire some people and put them on retainer. (And creating NFTs of baseball players doesn't work either.) The players need to practice as a team in realistic conditions; some of them could get hurt during practice (and equipment could get destroyed). You can't just hire H1Bs for this (although a nod to the French Foreign Legion, at least historically), you need people who are actually good at it and passionate for the game: you're going to have to have continuing tryouts and a farm system for identifying potential top players, and you'll need to cycle talent through over time because people don't stay at the top of their game forever. Finally, that passion is required of players if you expect them to stay at the top of their game over time in the face of a world which doesn't care.
  - woobar 3y ago
    I agree with you. But I believe there are two ways to sell a weapons program to the public. One is covered by your baseball analogy. Yes, you want to be self-reliant and be able to manufacture critical defense systems in case of a hypothetical all-out war. But job programs have some immediate benefits for both politicians and their constituents.

aardvarkr 3y ago

Because it’s the American version of those and they have updated the design and tech throughout the years to keep up with the latest improvements. Just because it was first build in the 80’s doesn’t mean the design has been kept static.

meepmorp 3y ago
Yes, but the Starstreak has one big missile that releases 3 smaller missiles at mach 4. I get your point, but on the other hand, what about weird British missiles?
- tyho 3y ago
  Starstreak is also impervious to flares.
  - jandrewrogers 3y ago
    Starstreak is impervious to flares because it requires a human to paint the target. Stingers are fire-and-forget, and modern versions use dual-mode IR and UV imagers that are impervious to flares.
greedo 3y ago
Other than a new proximity fuse, they really haven't updated the design much for a decade. Most of the upgrades have been to extend the service life of the missile, since most munitions have a Best Use By date...

jsiepkes 3y ago

If you switch to a different platform you will also have to change the way you do training, logistics, (field) maintenance, etc. That's going to be a hell of a project. So if you have something that works...

jandrewrogers 3y ago

US weapons are designed to be continuously upgraded with new technology as it becomes available. The current weapon carrying the Stinger name (FIM-92) is state-of-the-art and has more capable terminal guidance than MANPADS like Starstreak (which is a beam rider). The introduction date of US weapons has little bearing on their sophistication due to the Ship of Theseus upgrades, and most were a decade or two ahead of their counterparts when released anyway. Most can be upgraded or downgraded to a specific version/standard on demand. Downgrades are commonly done for export of US military inventory.

woobar 3y ago

Because most weapons programs are also jobs programs. The money spend on Stinger will stay in the USA.

m3047 3y ago
> jobs programs I believe that is the point, notiwthstanding that all jobs programs are not the same. Time for some baseball (my favorite analogy). If you want to preserve your ability to "play ball" "against the day": it's not enough to keep a stock of balls, gloves and bats. You have to be able to make gloves, balls and bats. You need suitable "dual use" fields, or a plan (and force) for rapidly converting fields for baseball use. But that's just the infrastructure. You need to preserve your ability to play ball. You can't just hire some people and put them on retainer. (And creating NFTs of baseball players doesn't work either.) The players need to practice as a team in realistic conditions; some of them could get hurt during practice (and equipment could get destroyed). You can't just hire H1Bs for this (although a nod to the French Foreign Legion, at least historically), you need people who are actually good at it and passionate for the game: you're going to have to have continuing tryouts and a farm system for identifying potential top players, and you'll need to cycle talent through over time because people don't stay at the top of their game forever. Finally, that passion is required of players if you expect them to stay at the top of their game over time in the face of a world which doesn't care.
- woobar 3y ago
  I agree with you. But I believe there are two ways to sell a weapons program to the public. One is covered by your baseball analogy. Yes, you want to be self-reliant and be able to manufacture critical defense systems in case of a hypothetical all-out war. But job programs have some immediate benefits for both politicians and their constituents.