5 ms·
More or less all of these yes. I always found it ironic how the new Javelin is believed to be cheaper because the components are less mechanical and easier to s
by a_vanderbilt 3y ago
More or less all of these yes. I always found it ironic how the new Javelin is believed to be cheaper because the components are less mechanical and easier to source. The continued support especially. Military systems can be designed (and warrantied) to last decades if maintained properly - and that costs the big bucks.
- Animats 3y agoDuring wartime, it may be better to design for a short lifespan. Build the seeker with ordinary AA batteries welded in instead of thermal batteries with a standby life of decades. If it's intended for Ukraine or Taiwan, skip the part temperature range that would allow the thing to sit in the sun for a year in Iraq. Seal up the unit and stencil it "NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE" and "USE BEFORE 2026-12-31". It will have been fired at the enemy long before then.
- hef19898 3y agoConsidering that WW2 artillery shells were used all the way into th 70s and 80s, you might rethink that.
- lukan 3y agoUkraine is out of ammunition NOW. If the war suddenly ends and they have to dispose of warheads that will expire soon, that is a cost that can be paid. But more importantly for them is ammunition now, if that can be achieved by making the build process simple, it should probably be done.
- hef19898 3y agoYes, you should tell theilitary industrial complex to produce arms and ammunitions during times of peak demand. You know, they might not have gotten the memo that they should get production volumes up.
- lukan 3y ago"You know, they might not have gotten the memo that they should get production volumes up." They don't want memos, but solid 10-15 year contracts. And since they are not getting that, not much is happening.
- khokhol 3y agoUkraine is out of ammunition NOW There's no need to be hyperbolic. They're certainly facing a serious situation. But by all accounts they still have some runway. And if you'll check your current news feeds very carefully: no, the front hasn't collapsed, and no, the Russians aren't on the verge of overrunning Kharkiv and Odesa. So no, Ukraine is not "out of ammunition NOW".
- lukan 3y agoThey have so little ammunition, that they have to think 2 or 3 times about every artillery and even more so every anti air shot they have to take. With resserves are shrinking and less and less on the way. It is hard, waging war this way. Russia on the other hand is now in war economy mode. They produce ammunition and tanks way, way faster, than the west. So if there would be a startup saying, we can build a automated factory, spitting out cheap javelin alike warheads using off the shelf components, would surely get money, if they have some expertise.
- khokhol 3y agoRight, but making statements that are plainly and objectively false (simply for alarmist effect) doesn't help make that happen.
- lukan 3y agoNatural language is not mathematically precise. Effectivly Ukraine is out of critical ammunition, when they have to evaulate every shot.
- khokhol 3y agoThere is imprecise language, and then there is spin.
- lukan 3y agoI might have done a bit of hyperbole to get the point across, true. But by my understanding, when you are in a war and see the enemy, but cannot shoot at them, then you are effectivly out of ammunition by my definition. Even though sure, more precise would have been, very low on ammo.
- a_vanderbilt 3y agoYou can't immediately scale up manufacturing. People have to be trained, parts have to be procured, and facilities made available to build the things. Ramp-up takes months, and if you're lucky the product is well established already so you aren't stepping on landmines as you scale. I helped to restart a mothballed process for a military product once and I have stories that you wouldn't believe.
- dilyevsky 3y agoYou’re advocating general motors approach over tesla/spacex approach. Tesla is selling millions of evs every year now an gm, boeing and friends are with you making excuses about training people and their process
- a_vanderbilt 3y agoI'm not advocating any approach. I'm telling you, as someone who has years of experience in the field of defense manufacturing, that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will. My posts on the topic are for the edification of whoever reads them, convincing anyone isn't my concern as ultimately it isn't HN comments that are going to change the situation. Maybe SpaceX should start making Javelins by the millions (: For context btw: I oversaw the production of hundreds (if not into the thousands) of the Javelins we sent to Ukraine. Two of my coworkers were Ukrainian too. Do not mistake my brutal realism for a lack of caring about the situation.
- dilyevsky 3y ago> that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will That worked for russia but somehow doesn't work in the west? I mostly lack experience in defense tech beyond being a user but ime it often doesn't work as well as the certificate (which probably cost a lot of effort to obtain) states it does. I'm of the opinion that we need to radically rethink our approach here if we hope to deter or withstand potential conflict with china in the next 10 years.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- a_vanderbilt 3y agoIt isn't as simple as "make a new design with a shorter lifespan" either. These systems are intended to work the first time every time, and every change introduces numerous second-order consequences. You swapped the batteries? Great the balance of the missile now changed and we have to re-calculate the flight dynamics. Remove some shielding and conformal coating? Now the thermal properties have changed on the control boards and the welds are cracking due to different heat propagation. We certainly could make them cheap and dirty, but their reliability and consistency would suffer. The last thing you want is to shoot a missile and piss off the guy on the receiving end, who isn't dead but is now very motivated to get revenge.