5 ms·
Dang they’re only 30 years behind us now.
by jncfhnb 2y ago
Dang they’re only 30 years behind us now.
- jasonvorhe 2y agoWhere do you get that information from?
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoThe last ATACMS was made 30 years ago.
- sharpshadow 2y agoThat’s not correct. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/documents/business-area-landing/mfc-Fast-Facts-ATACMS.pdf https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/m...
- gessha 2y ago> 65 designated as small businesses I find it amusing Lockheed Martin cares about small business arms component suppliers
- llamaimperative 2y agoI figure that’s because you’re unaware of how ludicrously complex and distributed the arms manufacturing industry is? Lockheed et al are primarily systems integrators. They have sprawling networks of vendors that they’re orchestrating to produce “their” weapon systems.
- popcalc 2y agoMost of those small businesses are owned by the sons and daughters of major family-owned contractors so they can get the designations. It's a farce.
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoThe same kind of stuff happened during the Iraq war - makes the normal person feel like the regular Joe or Jane is getting a piece of the action. But in reality they just let you get a pass through %. That movie War Dogs, while comical and inaccurate about a number of points, kinda was spot on about that one.
- kube-system 2y agoIt is not about “caring” it is about legal requirements. The government sometimes requires procurement from small business. e.g. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_2
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoSorry, the ATACMS design is 30 years old I should have said.
- pydry 2y ago[flagged]
- onemoresoop 2y agoCompletely lost on whose side?
- Arnt 2y agoNot going to say "lost", myself, but Russia looks oddly weak. It's the country that planned the fight in advance and could stock up, yet is buying from Iran and North Korea and AFAICT its own latest tank model still hasn't even been used once. It's the country that has a large air force and is using waves of untrained infantry attacks instead of air power. It's the country with the larger population yet recruiting mercenaries abroad. It's the country that's lost control of the Black Sea against an opponent that has no navy.
- squidbeak 2y agoATACMS is superseded by the Precision Strike Missile. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/precision-strike-missile.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/precision-stri...
- stanfordkid 2y agoI mean it’s easier to build something new than guess how a black box you don’t have access to works (short of spying on the manufacturing facility). I’m sure Russian missile technology has at least somewhat kept up.
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt absolutely has not kept up. ATACMs are 30 years old. Russia just doesn’t have anything like it.
- konart 2y agoOnly 250, 500, 1000, 1500 and 3000kg bombs with hacked-in winds and some navigation to hit you with 10-30m precision.
- dmix 2y agoRussia struggles to shoot down ATACMs, even with their most advanced SAMS, but they do have road mobile versions of Iskander which is pretty similar. They are just bigger and twice the cost.
- jncfhnb 2y agoVery little evidence of these being used to any effect comparable to ATACMs
- dmix 2y agoThen you haven't been following the war closely. I watch combat videos daily and Iskander is easily their most potent weapon after Lancet drones (and artillery). Patriot can't cover the whole massive frontlines.
- jncfhnb 2y agoThe iskander and lancet drones are absolutely not used to nearly the same efficacy as atacms. Those things are regularly just hurled at low value civilian targets in large part because of poor targeting. They’re generally not the road mobile variety either. The most potent weapon in their arsenal right now in terms of battlefield value are their helicopters and glide bombs
- ivanwood 2y ago[flagged]
- themgt 2y agoThe US Army announced that the first PrSM batch has been delivered in December 2023. Operational testing is expected in 2024, with low-rate initial production, full-rate production, and initial capability testing expected in 2025, according to the Government Accountability Office’s 2023 Weapons Systems Annual Assessment. A total of 110 PrSMs are expected to be procured in fiscal 2024 and 190 in fiscal 2025 It's fairly ridiculous to claim that ATACMS M57(?) last produced a few years to decade ago which are still our best-in-class available for operational use until ~2025+ are "30 years" old tech. The number of PrSMs we'll have by end of next year would last us about 24 hours in a great power war. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision-strike-missile/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision...
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt’s really quite reasonable. The basic capabilities of the ATACMS are not hugely changed and have been available for decades. Russia does not have an equivalent that is demonstrably deployed effectively. They’re also not the focal point of US military development. The quality of Russian equipment being deployed right now is really bad. The limiting factor here is not “science”. Fun bonus if you want to watch some people die: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1dv3086/north_korean_shells_in_the_russian_army/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1dv3086/north_kore...
- themgt 2y agoRussia does not have an equivalent that is demonstrably deployed effectively. Ukraine is being hit with Iskander-M all the time, e.g. just days ago at Myrhorod taking out SU-27s. The quality of Russian equipment being deployed right now is really bad. And yet Ukraine is still losing territory, countless men, and the war. This blasé attitude is just bizarre, as if NATO has a secret stock of wunderwaffen about to be arrive and deliver the coup de grâce any day. NATO has spent a quarter trillion dollars+ on this proxy war, staked its credibility on it, and is losing. Fun bonus if you want to watch some people die: Things people who have lost their humanity say.
- 2y ago
- paganel 2y agoDo people in the US genuinely believe that? Makes me think of that the Germans thought of the Soviets before June of 1941.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Do people in the US genuinely believe that? Yes, we fairly reasonably believe that Russia's struggle to make progress against a smaller neighbor using NATO hand-me-downs is heavily indicative of how they'd do against all of NATO using B-2s, F-22s and F-35s.
- paganel 2y agoInteresting. As a direct neighbor of Ukraine this hybris doesn’t sit all that well to me, but it is good to know, regardless.
- squidbeak 2y agoIt isn't hubris. Before the invasion western analysts were misled into believing Russian capabilities had or were near parity with modern western systems - one of the factors in the widespread assumption in western capitals on Feb 24, 2022 that Ukraine would fall in days. But Russian systems have mostly performed poorly in this war. Meanwhile Western systems have proven highly capable in all recent wars.
- lkasr 2y agoVietnam was a failure, Iraq was a failure, Afghanistan was a failure. I concede that NATO would put in more effort against Russia, but how about better not finding out in the first place? Russia would also put in more effort. This is hubris at its finest.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> I concede that NATO would put in more effort against Russia, but how about better not finding out in the first place? I mean, that's the point. That Russia's obvious takeaway from Ukraine should be "we'd lose fast and badly against actual NATO". As with Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a loss in Ukraine is most likely to come from the West going "eh whatever good enough we're out", not superior tech on the Russian side.