|
The Oldest Man posted:Imagine taking a set of principles about minimizing managerial overhead, using plain language to describe measurable objectives, and replacing formal process steps with face-to-face collaboration between principals who have mutual trust and accountability and going "ah yes I think I get it" and then creating this diagram that's a very complicated flowchart of "claim undue credit and cover my rear end if poo poo happens" office_politics_101.txt
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:US is working on a few hypersonic weapons now. the US hypersonic tests have had some pretty weird failures, there was one a couple years ago where they lost track of the missile very quickly so they don't know where it ended up, the speed it achieved, range etc. just "we know it worked to some extent and it's somewhere at the bottom of the ocean now, everything beyond that is a mystery" then this year they did a test where they managed to botch the on-board data recording even though they kept track of it this time
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
Palladium posted:that's a very complicated flowchart of "claim undue credit and cover my rear end if poo poo happens" office_politics_101.txt It's actually so trash even the US military industrial complex isn't all in on it https://twitter.com/lukadotnet/status/1203751211817742336?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:37
|
|
|
fail fast seems like a fine principle to have for something low stakes and virtual like fart app software development but... im no engineer but it does not seem like a good principle to have in manufacturing
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:fail fast seems like a fine principle to have for something low stakes and virtual like fart app software development but... im no engineer but it does not seem like a good principle to have in manufacturing Correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:fail fast seems like a fine principle to have for something low stakes and virtual like fart app software development but... im no engineer but it does not seem like a good principle to have in manufacturing It's the underlying principle behind rapid prototyping, sub-scale demonstration vehicles, wind-tunnel testing of scale models, etc. Any time you do something cheaply and quickly to see if it'll work before you bet the farm on the idea, that's failing fast. It's a great idea in manufacturing. The problem is that it is frequently implemented by morons who don't have any incentive to care about whether the program succeeds or fails and make their buck from either just existing or from selling a complication engine that slows everything down because doing the thing has become an industrial byproduct of a machine whose primary output is consultant jobs. So you end up with people saying (and acting like) "fail fast" means putting an operationally useless jet in the hands of people who need an actual working airplane, rather than like, building a wind-tunnel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
TBQH I personally think the US sucks at hypersonics simply because they don't have the expertise. The development of Chinese and Russian hypersonics weapons fundamentally trace back to the work of the USSR's design bureaus in charge of missile development, which invested a bucketload of resources and research into supersonic weaponry. Granit (Shipwreck), Moskit (Sunburn), Malakhit (Siren) were all designed and developed to have Mach 1+ speeds. When the USSR fell, while most industries got cannibalized for some reason the old missile bureaus simply reorganized and kept their expertise onboard throughout the entire process, hence the development of modern Russian supersonic cruise missiles such as Oniks and Kalibr being relatively smooth processes as compared to the boondoggles of the Su-57 and T-14, which thus laid the foundation for the Zircon and Kinzhal (the latter of which has been seen operational in Ukraine) or the absolute deranged madness that's the Burevestnik. The Chinese piggybacked off this process, either through tech transfer agreements or reverse engineering (YJ-12/93 is a variant of the Kh-31 air launched ARM, and the YJ-18 being a variant of the Kalibr), but they also extensively did a lot of development of this area through their attempts to build various flavours of the DF-series ballistic missiles, to the point they could simply modify the DF-21 somewhat and then chuck it into a ship (as the YJ-21). Meanwhile, aside from various failed or cancelled programs, or one-off research prototypes like the X-51 Waverider, the US simply hasn't invested the same amount of research into supersonics or hypersonics post 1970. (SM-6 theoretically has anti-ship capability but I'll believe it when I see it; besides, no sane USN commander is going to waste their precious ABMs willy nilly on surface targets) Most of them are mainly subsonic, with focuses on stealth cruise missiles being the focus of development, such as in the LRASM, JASSM, and others. So its no surprise that, outside of the usual neolib shenanigans, the US is having a hard time getting new hypersonic weapons to work. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 04:13 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
The logic is really simple, the US doesn't want to spend money on program that provide proof of concept you can make a mark 3 -mark 5 carrier killer missile at 1/10000th the cost of a carrier. They also don't want to spend the R&D into making S400 like AA tech that can shoot down a F35. So the result is the Chinese hold their cards extremely cloee to their chest (fast anti ship missile DF16 DF26 and hyeprsonic versions DF17 and DF27), the pentagon has no idea whether they work and kind of have to assume they work because one hit on a US carrier wil kill more US sailers than the Bin laden did to wall street people in the Twin Tower buildings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
So what you're saying is china needs to launch a bunch of bin ladens out of land based launchers and have them kamikaze into American carriers
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
I am not a military nerd. As far as I know, detecting where the CSG is still the hardest part when war starts. When poo poo gets real, China will launch a bunch of low orbit satelite to help detect the CSG in the CSC. I think a US carrier will dance around east of pholippines but won't get too close to Taiwan because China should have more way to detect enemy ships near coast. I have no idea how much coverage can a endurence drone cover on the sea. China just sent a drone BT001 to circle Taiwan island recently. It has 3 sets of propellers and pretty long range. China probably still has a few years to go in this area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 07:27
|
|
|
Iriscoral posted:TBQH I personally think the US sucks at hypersonics simply because they don't have the expertise. us was also pretty busy with this through the cold war and there are an absurd number of ramjet/scramjet projects going through the 50s/60s/70s. From https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Gilreath.pdf and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N02/18-02-Waltrup.pdf it sounds like they were busy. there was a hypersonic missile program started in 1962 that got into wind tunnel/engine tests at up to mach 10 (https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23952?journalCode=jpp) quote:During the period of 1962-1978, the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University developed the technology for a family of missiles named SCRAM for use as fleet defense weapons. SCRAM is the acronym for supersonic combustion ramjet missile, The development work began with the conceptual design of two missile configurations and calculations of the expected performance for a variety of missions to provide defense for the surface fleet. A novel class of multinodule fixed-geometry hypersonic inlets was designed and wind-tunnel models were built and tested at Mach numbers of 4-10 at angles of attack up to 15 deg. Injector and combustor development was carried out in direct connect test apparatus, Considerable effort was directed to the development and testing of a wide variety of storable, reactive liquid fuels including boranes and aluminum alkyls. Many new testing techniques and diagnostic instruments were developed that are still key elements of scramjet test operations. The program culminated with the testing of the entire engine in free jets at Mach numbers of 5-7.3 and the design of a family of revised vehicle configurations that could exploit the full capability of the performance observed in the ground test program. This article presents the highlights of the technology program and references recently released documents. i'm not sure how that compares to the soviet/russian program but if they got that far in 1978, canned that program, but kept f unding others it doesn't seem like a whole lot of progress? i'm inclined to just call it a MIC grift casualty, but that still sounds like a weird gap. i don't know how close that hypersonic ramjet (ironically not scramjet) missile actually diverges or what the difficult parts here are. had expertise, lost expertise, replaced with rentgineers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 07:37
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:us was also pretty busy with this through the cold war and there are an absurd number of ramjet/scramjet projects going through the 50s/60s/70s. From https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Gilreath.pdf and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N02/18-02-Waltrup.pdf it sounds like they were busy. The X-15 rocket planes reached Mach 7 in the sixties, too, although a rocket plane with an 80-second active flight time is very different from a ramjet or scramjet missile or whatever the Chinese have that has a range over 1000km I'd imagine an X-15 launching from under the wing of a B-52 to the edge of space in one minute probably looks a lot like an ICBM to an early warning system
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:23
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:I am not a military nerd. As far as I know, detecting where the CSG is still the hardest part when war starts. Quick note here: the PLAAF/PLANAF drones are pretty advanced. There's so many on the market and most of the info around them is rather obscure, but in general from announced specs they are comparable to the West. The TB-001 is their MALE (medium altitude long endurance) variant for surveillance, which usually are more for closer missions such as around Taiwan, but their HALE UAVs such as the WZ-7 Soaring Dragon and WZ-10 is pretty much comparable to the Global Hawk. Those are the ones likely to be deployed to the Philippine Sea for observation (we've seen them flying through the Miyako Straits recently), and used in support for PLAN battlegroups and picking out USN CSGs, but in a real world situation they are likely to be accompanied by standard AWACS aircraft such as the KJ-2000. Detection of USN CSGs is definitely still a problem; because as much as we can talk about how much they've improved in all search and tracking capabilities, as well as in satellite constellations its still really up in the air how many sensors they can deploy into the region and whether it will be enough (I've tried finding hard numbers in the past and its difficult; so I'll have to wait until I have more time in the future). At the same time, if we isolate things to Taiwan (seeing that most of poo poo that might start comes from there), the USN doesn't have an easy job either, as Liaoning and Shandong's CSGs will likely be deployed as a blocking force against them and any relief force towards Taiwan (given the recent dances between Shandong and the Nimitz between Guam and Taiwan), which makes the problem of finding the USN CSGs easier. At least if there's one thing the PLA has, is that they will have an abundance of platforms to launch ordnance from, from land/carrier based aircraft to ballistic missiles on TELs. In this scenario, the USN center of gravity is much more severe as they will have to keep their carriers afloat to actually be able to do anything around Taiwan, given that none of the bases in Japan or the Philippines are close enough for F-35As/F-15s (unless they do refueling, but that's still a tall order), but that's still approximately 120-160 F-35Cs/F/A-18s, plus some more F-35Bs curtsey of the USMC, alongside multiple Burkes and Ticonderogas plus the Virginia/Seawolves, so its still a toss up on who would win in the fight. But it gets more and more gnarly for the Americans if you start stretching the timeframe, because more Type 055s and 052DLs get into service, coupled with Fujian and the Type 076s, which are the rumoured drone carriers, as well as newer PLAN submarines. Of course, its unlikely Korea or Japan's naval forces wouldn't be drawn into this as well, but like I said I haven't had the time to draft a full OOB of the East and South Sea Fleets vs the whole of the ROKN/JMSDF expeditionary forces and the USN 7th Fleet, or the possible spoiler of the Russian Pacific Fleet/VKS from the Eastern Military District. I'll figure that poo poo out another time. Cuttlefush posted:us was also pretty busy with this through the cold war and there are an absurd number of ramjet/scramjet projects going through the 50s/60s/70s. From https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Gilreath.pdf and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N02/18-02-Waltrup.pdf it sounds like they were busy. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 09:33 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
Yeah, going back to the point about the carriers as well, the question is just how many aircraft are actually going to be combat available for an large engagement, and it may only be a relatively more modest portion of the flight wing than expected, especially regarding the F-35Cs, but also the aging nature of the F-18s as well. So you may, on paper, be able to get 3 carriers to the region if you really push things, but it may mean there isn't nearly as many fighters as expected. Also, they may not only be tangling with PLAN aircraft but PLAAF aircraft as well. Also, the Ticonderogas are going to be decommissioned faster than they can be replaced (alongside the older Burkes) which is going to cause another issue as far as fire power. Drawing in South Korea, would also draw in North Korea and reinitiate the Second Korean War, and Japan may not be fully up to speed for full combat operations. Vietnam would either be neutral or probably be on the side of China, and Russia as well. I actually think the PRC is in a better position than people realize. Also, the T-14/Su-57 are being built slowly, but I wouldn't call them boondoggles either. They are useful platforms, but clearly the Russian state can't afford full serial production while modernizing everything else (and now fighting a war) all at the same time. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 10:36 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:28
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Imagine taking a set of principles about minimizing managerial overhead, using plain language to describe measurable objectives, and replacing formal process steps with face-to-face collaboration between principals who have mutual trust and accountability and going "ah yes I think I get it" and then creating this diagram Yeah, my dumb megacorp has like one "fully agile" team and we invested two months of effort to find a process where we minimize contact with them because it takes ages. So they're certainly maximizing the work not done, good for them!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
How does India have faster missiles than the US lmao.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:How does India have faster missiles than the US lmao. Cooperation with Russia
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
One of the mythical origins of agile was the work external consultants did writing HR software for Chrysler, low stakes poo poo with a bunch of stakeholders that can turn into a quagmire of sunk fallacy. So totally suitable for the MIC
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
The only war the US can win is a PR war against its own citizens
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Imagine taking a set of principles about minimizing managerial overhead, using plain language to describe measurable objectives, and replacing formal process steps with face-to-face collaboration between principals who have mutual trust and accountability and going "ah yes I think I get it" and then creating this diagram
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Do not scrum Do not scrum
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do not scrum
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Cooperation with Russia its really weird because the brahmos came afterwards. Post USSR breakup the US government blocked Russia from selling missile tech to india and we had to develop it on our own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:its really weird because the brahmos came afterwards. Post USSR breakup the US government blocked Russia from selling missile tech to india and we had to develop it on our own. The US government has done a lot of things in the hopes of India being a strategic rival to China. Not a great track record of it panning out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
I'm gonna scrum
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Went to the doctor last week and he gave me some cream for my scrum but I don't think its working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The US government has done a lot of things in the hopes of India being a strategic rival to China. Not a great track record of it panning out. wasn't there some weird quirk of military geopolitics that saw US warplanes being sold to Afghanistan and Russian warplanes sold to India after the partition
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:wasn't there some weird quirk of military geopolitics that saw US warplanes being sold to Afghanistan and Russian warplanes sold to India after the partition Do you mean Pakistan instead of Afghanistan? If so, yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Do you mean Pakistan instead of Afghanistan? If so, yes doh yes that's what I meant
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:us was also pretty busy with this through the cold war and there are an absurd number of ramjet/scramjet projects going through the 50s/60s/70s. From https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Gilreath.pdf and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N02/18-02-Waltrup.pdf it sounds like they were busy. I think it's just while the US has infinite money, it doesn't have infinite money. The Air Force draws a lot of water in these parts and they like shiny jets. The Navy also likes shiny jets, though I would have expected them to like missiles the most since that's what naval conflict is now. The shiny jet makers also pay off everyone and their dog, though they inevitably also would make the fast missiles. This pattern also holds for why they don't like SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Why does the Coast Guard need heavy weapons? I saw they tried fitting SSMs on cutters? Cui bono?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Why does the Coast Guard need heavy weapons? I saw they tried fitting SSMs on cutters? Cui bono? Aesthetics. Look at these things. Inspirational. Maybe not to the US, but certainly inspirational to the IRGC naval force designers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus-class_hydrofoil
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Aesthetics. Look at these things. Inspirational. Maybe not to the US, but certainly inspirational to the IRGC naval force designers. the Coast Guard should establish a special forces flyboard squad and do stunt shows, it could only help with their moribund recruitment numbers
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
If I can pivot for a second, I don't really get a lot of these Epic Youtube Operator Gun channels, because here they're arguing that the long-serving and reliable M16A2 sucked because...? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx6uqsgIaSQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
The argument is that it isn't any kind of meaningful improvement over the very first version, but is heavier and has a useless 3 round burst restriction. The idea being you could just stick optics and a longer magazine on a Vietnam era gun and have something better and that the other various changes they made over the years aren't really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
The forward assist redesign, grip redesign, and interchangeable and better shaped heat shields are very nice little improvements over the A1, just not revolutionary or anything. A1 heat shields were fussy, a dumb shape, and logistically stupid because there was a "left" and "right" one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
I don't have strong opinions on the rifle of imperialism but the forward assist is a completely useless device that doesn't need to exist
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
I thought the a1 jammed all the time in Vietnam’s mud so the forward assist of the a2 fixed that. I cannot imagine getting pissy about 3 ‘extra’ pounds. bring back hazing if this is what its lack has wrought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
It jammed because the troops were told it was a self cleaning rifle and other nonsense, the AR is actually super mud resistant compared to most rifles The forward assist fixes nothing, ramming a cartridge into the chamber when it's obstructed but mud and grit does not help the situation, it is a totally useless feature that just gives the troop another way of loving up the gun if it does malfunction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:It jammed because the troops were told it was a self cleaning rifle and other nonsense, the AR is actually super mud resistant compared to most rifles That’s half the story. They also designed and tested the M16 around one type of gunpowder, then changed to a totally different type of powder in ammo production and fielding. Eventually, they adjusted the design and some key internals to make up for this bureaucratic change. Took 4 years(!) or so. quote:The forward assist fixes nothing, ramming a cartridge into the chamber when it's obstructed but mud and grit does not help the situation, it is a totally useless feature that just gives the troop another way of loving up the gun if it does malfunction. You rarely need it, but it is extremely useful when you do need it. I’ve never had to touch it on a personal rifle at a range. I’ve had to use it when given a dry, poorly maintained rifle with ancient magazines and then sent to a literal desert to run around and shoot all day. Handy for getting a first stubborn round to seat. But the failure drill isn’t “repeatedly slam the forward assist and do nothing else”
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:51
|
|