21–30 of 100 posts
[flagged]
Disrupting society is remarkably easy if you draw outside the lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would assume a company like Raytheon has all their processes documented and can quickly spin up a new manufacturing line for a legacy product. Do you assume that they had all of their processes documented 20 years ago, and that they have retained all of that documentation, and that the documentation is appropriate for a 2023 workforce and doesn't make assumptions about the audience that would be invalid today? Be…
I'd guess it was true. I've worked with engineering companies across Europe, and their documentation is always amazing, with full traceability of every component going back to the 80's. Everything from processes to weld inspections. I'd assume that a company engineering weapons would be the same.
Otherwise, you're in the business of archeology, a field which itself requires extra-archaeological context to make sense of its own findings.
If the Vitebsk-25 defensive system works anywhere near as well as claimed, it would seem to be a really bad idea to resume production of this old technology.
The difference is training. Scores of operators on the ground are already trained and experienced on the Stinger platform and the development of complete already. Backfilling a proven stock item is faster than infilling a new platform. Refer to the training cycles required for tanks provided by the UK. Those tanks have qualified operators ( with matching tactical-operational skills, but there are few personnel to bac…
[flagged]
You could fly $300 drones around an airport and that would pose a significant enough safety hazard that would likely shutdown all traffic. Or shine those high powered laser pointers at the planes. Disrupting society is remarkably easy if you draw outside the lines.
If the Vitebsk-25 defensive system works anywhere near as well as claimed, it would seem to be a really bad idea to resume production of this old technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd guess it was true. I've worked with engineering companies across Europe, and their documentation is always amazing, with full traceability of every component going back to the 80's. Everything from processes to weld inspections. I'd assume that a company engineering weapons would be the same.
But documentation is only part of it. There's a culture (or tradition) that carries with it the context needed to interpret documentation. You can reduce some of the context, yes, but sola scriptura is wrong for a reason. Otherwise, you're in the business of archeology, a field which itself requires extra-archaeological context to make sense of its own findings.
I'd expect the same standard for anything military/involving national security, alone for the fact that should war come, there will be a need to rapidly expand production, to rope in everyone able and willing - and that won't work without complete documentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could fly $300 drones around an airport and that would pose a significant enough safety hazard that would likely shutdown all traffic. Or shine those high powered laser pointers at the planes. Disrupting society is remarkably easy if you draw outside the lines.
Remarkably easy - but at the price of facing full wrath in return and destroying your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is training. Scores of operators on the ground are already trained and experienced on the Stinger platform and the development of complete already. Backfilling a proven stock item is faster than infilling a new platform. Refer to the training cycles required for tanks provided by the UK. Those tanks have qualified operators ( with matching tactical-operational skills, but there are few personnel to bac…
The US is not actively in a war. Do we not have enough idle personnel who can be trained now so they can handle future uses?
I think the issue here is more about finding someone with security clearance (labor shortage) rather than the know how. I would assume a company like Raytheon has all their processes documented and can quickly spin up a new manufacturing line for a legacy product.
Jobs with security clearances don't pay like they used to. People with technical backgrounds have little incentive to go down that path.
Complex missile systems? That's nothing compared to my vm running kube, running docker, running nextjs react emulating x86 and running kube again. Layers of more software surrounding software is the next big thing. Also microservices and LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would assume a company like Raytheon has all their processes documented and can quickly spin up a new manufacturing line for a legacy product. Do you assume that they had all of their processes documented 20 years ago, and that they have retained all of that documentation, and that the documentation is appropriate for a 2023 workforce and doesn't make assumptions about the audience that would be invalid today? Be…
I'd guess it was true. I've worked with engineering companies across Europe, and their documentation is always amazing, with full traceability of every component going back to the 80's. Everything from processes to weld inspections. I'd assume that a company engineering weapons would be the same.
Europe isn't overflowing with gigantic tech companies nor defense contractors that would have what you're describing going back to the 1980s and 1990s. You can likely count them on one hand, given how few there are to begin with.
There's a very big difference between knowing how something was made decades ago via schematic & component lists, and having to restart very high-quality production from scratch, including the ancient components. Building things related to technology during their actual time + place, is considerably easier than trying to recreate that time + place decades into the future and at scale.