4 ms·
Or you accept slightly lower standards and get them for a fraction of the price in a fraction of the time.
by konschubert 3y ago
Or you accept slightly lower standards and get them for a fraction of the price in a fraction of the time.
- hef19898 3y agoAnd than a Stinger fails while being fired from, say, a F-35. And it fails catastrophically, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and, worst case the pilot. Which can happen, a stinger is tube filled woth rocket fuel carryong a warhead designed to take down planes. I can already see the HN comments: Pentagon and defence conteactors to stupid to conduct simple quality control. The software obviously sucked, but what do you expect from government or old industry... Let's just say that Raytheon has a pretty strong incentive to be able to scale up Stonger production, and despite claims of the contrary, they are pretty good at doing so.
- Zach_the_Lizard 3y ago> And than a Stinger fails while being fired from, say, a F-35. And it fails catastrophically, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and, worst case the pilot. I'm guessing that Stinger missiles, just like any other machine, have a failure rate above 0% already. If we can produce them more quickly, efficiently, etc., but that failure rate increased that might be worth it if we get to produce more missiles. Or maybe the new missiles are cheap enough that targets we previously couldn't cost effectively engage can be added to the menu. Even in war, "good enough" is still important. We can just as easily lose that F35 because we didn't have any missiles to launch, so it didn't even take off.
- ianburrell 3y agoStinger is always going to fail when dropped from F-35 since it is a man portable missile.