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.
Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
71–80 of 100 posts
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat. My uncle worked on nuke stuff at Lawrence Livermore. He used to sleep talk incoherent phrases. I never made sense of anything but it was fun to guess. Stuff like "no, the crosstalk will ruin in" or "it's too close to the physics pack they will not approve".
I’ve always wondered if “known sleep talker” could put clearance at risk. Or you commit to always sleep in a SCIF…
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I always thought a lot of the abstractions we add were just pure resume-driven nonsense too, but I guess it is better than having engineering minded people think up better ways to liquify other humans.
Having worked in defense, I don't recall anyone who was gleeful about killing others. It was all about keeping our families and neighbors safe. If you're arguing against defense work in general, please consider the consequences of unilaterally disarming ourselves. I want world peace. Unfortunately others seem to prefer expansion / exploitation of other nations.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#74[flagged]
I think the US is a bit idiosyncratic in that it uses trucks more than most other countries. The saying amongst teamsters/truckers (often attributed to Jimmy Hoffa) would be, "if you got it, a truck brought it". We also use rail for a lot of heavy goods. Another weird quirk of the US is that the constitution should probably allow private ownership of such weapons according to modern interpretation.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As I've written in a similar post, this attitude is a bit baffling. In IT we say, a backup ain't a backup until regularly validated to work, and most IT insurances/policies require regular testing for backups. 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 -…
But that's probably where the issue lies. Those plans make certain assumptions based on the technology, tooling, and processes in use at the time. The bill of materials may reference off-the-shelf parts that were readily available back in the 70s and 80s but are now considered obsolete. Some of the raw materials specified may no longer in use due to new environmental regulations, changes in industry standards, limited availability nowadays for any number of reasons, etc. Machining processes may be documented in the context of machines, tools, and procedures common a the time that we simply no longer use. Similar challenges exist for every part of the process, from sourcing materials to quality control.
You can document everything with a great deal of detail at the time--likely the case here, by the nature of manufacturing complex products--but that doesn't mean it will be understood in exactly the same manner forty years later. No engineer can predict how processes and standards will change over that kind of time frame; the best they can do is document everything clearly enough that future engineers can work through what's left behind and adapt it as needed in the future.
Bringing in retirees likely expedites that process. They can almost certainly work through it, but if a few phone calls and meetings with retired staff can speed things along, there's no reason not to. It doesn't mean someone screwed the pooch in the past. In a military context, existing stockpiles are meant to give you sufficient time to restart production.
With a computer backup, you can monitor that the system is functioning and verify the recovery process. You can even confirm it directly, restoring backups to a separate system. You can't do that with a manufacturing line that hasn't manufactured anything in forty years. Either you keep it active, manufacturing items you neither need nor want, or you try to constantly update your plans every few years on the off-chance that you'll want to build more outdated Stingers in the future.
That would absurdly wasteful, and even if you catch some changes in procedure/systems/materials, you'll miss plenty of others unless you actually try to restart production. No matter what you do, there's going to have to be a certain degree of interpretation work that's needed.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#76That's weird, the stinger is an amazing weapon which allows an infantry to take out an aerial threat, which is quite amazing. I don't understand why they would not secure the production of that missile, or even replace it with something new. It's not like they don't have enough money to cover all possible sorts of weapons that can exist.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#77That's weird, the stinger is an amazing weapon which allows an infantry to take out an aerial threat, which is quite amazing. I don't understand why they would not secure the production of that missile, or even replace it with something new. It's not like they don't have enough money to cover all possible sorts of weapons that can exist.
Different doctrine. Stinger is useful for LSCO (large scale combat operations) doctrine, but NATO thought it would be COIN doctrine (counter insurgency like in Afghanistan) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
I get the sense Ukraine us using them as the insurgency rather than the counter-insurgency
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked in defense, I don't recall anyone who was gleeful about killing others. It was all about keeping our families and neighbors safe. If you're arguing against defense work in general, please consider the consequences of unilaterally disarming ourselves. I want world peace. Unfortunately others seem to prefer expansion / exploitation of other nations.
Americans are truly the most brainwashed people on the planet.
The US is deploying an entire chain of military forces around china. Literally. From Japan all the way through taiwan to the Philippines we are boxing china in with massive amounts of deadly firepower.
Any equivalent action against the US would launch mass hysteria among the public. As much as I don't agree with certain things china does.. they are showing incredible restraint here. The US media is pulling off the most successful propaganda campaign I've ever seen... Literally characterizing this action as something that's self defense and necessary for world peace.
Self defense is a complete joke. it's 100 percent military aggression by the US. All in the name of economic and military power.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#79I 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.
Re: Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked in defense, I don't recall anyone who was gleeful about killing others. It was all about keeping our families and neighbors safe. If you're arguing against defense work in general, please consider the consequences of unilaterally disarming ourselves. I want world peace. Unfortunately others seem to prefer expansion / exploitation of other nations.
Americans are truly the most brainwashed people on the planet.
I'd like to respond, but it's not clear if you're up for a serious discussion.