>The aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles that have formed the land-based leg of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad for half a century can no longer be upgraded and require costly replacements, Adm. Charles Richard, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said Tuesday.
>"Let me be very clear: You cannot life-extend the Minuteman III [any longer]," he said of the 400 ICBMs that sit in underground silos across five states in the upper Midwest.
>"We can't do it at all. ... That thing is so old that, in some cases, the drawings don't exist anymore [to guide upgrades]," Richard said in a Zoom conference sponsored by the Defense Writers Group.
This is just a psyop against our adversaries right?: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/06/minuteman-iii-missiles-are-too-old-upgrade-anymore-stratcom-chief-says.html
Oh boy, now we have to build a new missile that lasts....in an age where "planned obsolescence" is omnipresent.
My advice? Use simple RELIABLE components. Stuff that doesn't break or age much.
Planned obsolescence is just angry boomer language for having a realistic concept of service life. Anything we build now will be vastly superior in every way to what we were building decades ago.
You’re not wrong, but IMO it was never planned obsolescence as much as it was DIY being more and more burdensome. Old cars were mechanically shit more often than not, but it was easy enough to fix them up yourself or pay some other jagoff to do it since most of them followed the same core mechanical principles. Now for newer shit its becoming more and more necessary to take them to technicians actually certified by whatever make you have. And obviously nukes of all fricking things aren’t going to fall victim to the same anti DIY shit that consumer stuff does.
this tbqh. my fricking dad will constantly complain about how worthless modern shit is, but i was just talking to him a few days ago and he was like "you know, you don't see many cars broken down by the side of the road anymore these days". took everything in my power to bite my tongue and tell him it's because modern cars aren't fricking dogshit like the ones he grew up with, despite how much he fricking b***hes because he's too moronic to operate an infotainment system.
i fricking hate old people. all of their whining boils down to "life was better when my knees didn't hurt!!!". like, no shit, YOUR life probably was legitimately better back then, but that doesn't mean things are worse NOW for anyone except you. getting old sucks but stop making your fricking problems into some endless b***hfest. honestly people should just be shot when they turn 60.
And a Skibidi Toilet to you too, young man!
>t. Boomers who sold their next 2 generations of lineage down the river for pennies on the dollar.
Post physiognomy homosexual, I can picture you now in my head. Balding, beard to hide a weak chin, soft cheekbones and pudgy
Too many people don't get this. Yes, wrenching was far easier in the past, but now cars don't burn through their entire coolant tank on a single road trip. People don't even realize you no longer need to necessarily carry oil, coolant, or other things with you.
There is also the fact that the average commute distance has ballooned as well.
It's a new age and boomers/oldgays need to get on board.
Sure, engines have improved quite a bit since the 60s but if you don't look that far you'll clearly see the mounting issues modern engines started to have, especialy since the 2000s, primarily with the various anti-emission devices and features but also the overload of electronics and sensors used to micromanage and support those anti-emission things. They are much less reliable, very difficult to work with and expensive to replace, to the point that modern car owners spend as much money on fuel as they do on repairs and maintenance. It's gotten so bad that even the ancient leaky and inefficient engines of the 60s and 70s start looking attractive compared to the modern mess.
This is not really tied as much to the manufacturers and the planned obsolescense as it is to the ongoing war that legistlators wage against private transportation but it creates massive barriers to entry, monopolies and allows for the countries to easier abuse the market conditions regardless.
First off, modern cars are far more prone to catastrophic failures than older cars because it turns out trying to get 300hp out of a 1.8L I4 strains the engine. The cars you are speaking of haven't existed since the 70's and you can look at plently of options from the 80's and 90's and even quite a few from the 2000's that are great.
Now that leads me to my next point that a car doesn't need to be one exteme or the other you can have a good reliable car that is easy to work on, modern cars have been getting worse and worse about being fixable with some modern vehicles (particularly electric) being so difficult to fix even the manufacturer doesn't want to fix them.
I feel like you are a young kid who has only owned a single car, so I'll let you in on a secret. Prior to 2008 cars may as well have been in a golden age where everything was comfortable, cheap, easy to fix, got good gas milage, and you were absolutely spoiled for choice. A young kid in high school with a part time job could buy everything from a geo metro to an older caddy and not be stressing over a loan or saving up for one because there was gazillions of cars left over from the last 3 decades that were still good to go. All those cars have been destroyed by the government or been so inflated in price because somehow a VW Beatle despite being one of the most mass produced vehicles in the world is considered a rare collectors item.
Short of it is shit was good for a while and shit is mad gay now. Anyone over the age of 30 and especially 40 will know this all too well.
>please sell your 1998 rock solid commuter car to cash for clunkers and buy a hybrid goy, it's 2008 and you're full of obama hope for the future so just get rid of it already, haven't you seen an inconvenient truth?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
CNC machining tools become started to appear in automotive industry in 70's became common in 80's and ubiquitous 90's. Fitting and finish of car parts way better than it used to be. Bit behind aerospace, defense and industrial suppliers. A used car from early 2000's is generally in better condition after 10 years or so than cars from 70's were after 3 or so years.
Modern cars are way less prone to catastrophic or other lesser failures. The difference is that back then if something happened, average joe himself or local mechanic could fix almost everything by themselves. Now, they can't partially due to more complex stuff inside car, engine and other components. Partially because car manufacturers aren't willing distribute tools or just software outside of their authorized repair shops and dealers. They rarely get any backlash from it. One instance where they got backlash is when tire pressure sensors became mandatory equipment on new cars bit over decade ago. Dealers/authorized service centers basically charged 50 or 60€ for resetting pressure sensors, its a 3 or 4 minutes of mechanic fricking around car with hand held device and hooking up with each pressure sensor and car itself with bluetooth device and pressing touch screen couple times. Most of time spent figuring out which tire is which. They dropped the cost to 10 to 15€ as result. Main reason they got backlash is because in my neck of woods you change your tires twice a year due to seasons, regardless are those tires worn or not. Modern cars are kinda like live service vidya, those are built to nickle and dime customers.
Getting delayed couple years is normal in military procurement. With Minuteman replacement there might be more than usual pressure to hit the goal date. If they have start to do unplanned Minuteman overhauls keep up number while replacement is delayed, that shit is going to be expensive as frick.
>Partially because car manufacturers aren't willing distribute tools or just software outside of their authorized repair shops and dealers
they also like to put things that break or need maintenance up the ass behind all the monumental shit that needs heavy equipment to be removed so you can't easily get to it, or get it assembled back.
They didn't give preferential treatment to 3rd world competition, they just lowered the tariffs to enter the market. As result lot of consumer goods that require manual labor are manufactured in third world. Stuff like clothes are only made in the west if manufacturing process is highly automated, mandated by laws to be manufactured in home like military and other uniforms of government services, some industry actually requiring high quality professional clothes or it frick expensive boutique product.
>They didn't give preferential treatment to 3rd world competition
yes they did, especially china
They don't get any sort of preferential treatment. It is just that corporate elites went for third world manufacturing because it gives 'em higher profit margins. Slave labor is their dream. Remember kids, greed is good.
>They don't get any sort of preferential treatment.
yes they did. Kissinger et al made sure of it.
>yes they did. Kissinger et al made sure of it.
No, they don't they under trade same damn rules as everyone else in WTO or GATT before it. Chinks may have gotten preferential treatment over other third world nations. So corporate elites went to China for slave labor instead of Vietnam, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. At least initially.
True but what does that matter in a world of ever decreasing consumers/consumption. Reliable items will be in much more demand from now on to the future. I am in agreement, however most shit is still coming out of China even though we are at the edge of WW3. We need prices to revert to acceptable levels if we ever want to start building things properly.
I guess that's why my 1980s washer and dryer are going strong without any parts breakages in 40 years and all my friends modern washers and dryers are constantly having $400 problems or bricking themselves every 3 years.
that's because our free market decided it wanted cheap parts, appliances, etc assembled and forged in China, and was willing to tolerate the lower longevity for decreased upfront costs.
"Planned obsolescence" as a systemic practice isn't real, nor has it ever been. That's ignorant boomer and commie cope over natural market forces and human preferences
>our free market
what's free about government giving trade preferences to the chinese companies and those that trade with them?
>"Planned obsolescence" as a systemic practice isn't real
Cool lies, how much do they pay you to spread them? Or do you do it for free?
>free market
lmao homie the US has literally never been a free market outside of extremely local commerce (which has been regulated out of existence)
As for Planned Obsolescence not being real, all I can say is you are blind, moronic, or both. There has been examples of planned obsolescence in pretty much every single market you can think of outside of extremely niche shit.
From phones, cars, and appliances to shit like video games, light bulbs, and printers. Basically every item has had a sandal regarding it not so much because they are unique in doing so but because they are the most blatant or obvious about it (see apple, tesla, Hewlett Packard)
This is also not to say that every single company is doing this or even that some of these examples are on purpose, which is the only real thing that makes a difference in if it's planned obsolescence or not. It is generally pretty hard to determine legally speaking if a critical failure point is due to a design oversight or just straight up on purpose. However one way that generally works for most people and if it's bad enough even for the courts that there is a well known issue with some kind of product, and even years later that issue is never fixed.
I can continue but honestly just look this shit up yourself, it's really not hard to find examples of honest to god planned obsolescence for close to a century now across the globe.
~~*free market*~~
Lookup the lightbulb that's been running for about 100 years non stop.
>he fell for the centennial light bulb meme
The term itself is a bit of a misnomer, but it does describe a real thing. Because there isn't a central plan doesn't mean that a thing doesn't exist, it's a form of convergent evolution.
The relentless pursuit of the bottom line and value engineering is the primary driver of "planned obsolescence," I think it originates in biz schools. Building a quality, long lived product is simply not a goal and therefore the products made are cheaper and of poorer quality.
Article from 2021. Its going to be replaced with LGM-35 Sentinel starting in 2030.
>Planned obsolescence is just angry boomer language for having a realistic concept of service life.
Planned obsolescence is something that applies to consumer products. It basically means when your smart phone hits 4 years old, final software updates might down clock the processor so whatever you do with becomes worse performing. Its all about convincing people with perfectly functional electronics to buy new ones and consuming more. Kinda related, capacitors in modern TV's and computer monitors are calculated to barely survive to when warranty runs out. X-amount of getting fricked prior to that date is just repair or replacement expense. Your smart phones battery dies and you have replaced by independent repair shop, oops, there is anti-tampering detection built into the system so down clocks the processor.
Planned obsolescence is all about fricking over still functional devices prior to actual service life of device runs out. Its about consuming more and companies making more money.
If someone did that on military hardware or most "essential services" equipment. That supplier would become instantly shunned by entire professional market. On consumer electronics, it is the prevalent business model.
>replaced with LGM-35 Sentinel starting in 2030.
IOC is 2029, not 2030.
Though if I were a betting man i'd hedge my bets on ~2032-3.
> all essebtial equipment
oh yeah, just all the medical equipment nowadays has it, which is the most regulated field imaginable
Brainlet zoomer cope post.
Planned obsolescence is very real. I just doubt the military would do it with ICBMs. More like cellphones and TV sets.
Reminder that LED bulbs lasted forever before manufacturers got together and publicly agreed to reduce their efficiency and lifespan. They literally formed a cartel and agreed to make their products low quality. Don't be such a bootlicker.
Good goy. Consume product and get excited for new product.
Yes we have the capacity to make the best products ever, but it isnt profitable to do so. So in many cases things are just good enough to work but not any better than they absolutely have to be.
Winge harder tradtard
can't have the defense dept (aka God and our true ruler in the US) lose any of their funding budget.
>My advice?
what's the most complicated thing you've designed or been a contributor to the design of?
>Reeeeee! Why can't this thing I need to be able to launch into space at a moments notice and have it travel around the world and hit a target work for more than 60 years!
We should build new nukes now before the inevitable debt crisis so that we don't end up like Russia, whose nuclear deterrent is getting less and less believable.
Solid fuel missiles can absolutely be kept in silos for 60 years with regular maintenance and be expected to end the world on a moment's notice. The problem is those 60 years have passed so they need new missiles. This isn't a hard concept.
>Solid fuel missiles can absolutely be kept in silos for 60 years with regular maintenance and be expected to end the world on a moment's notice
you mean, exactly like they are now? very insightful post, thank you
That is for consumer shit because people want the cheapest thing possible, not ICBMs.
>Stuff that doesn't break or age much.
Amorphous synthetic materials naturally flow and evaporate in decades. Plastics, glass, silicon tracks on chips. Components need to be treated like livestock not rocks. Structurally and compositionally they are closer.
Every wonder why there is so little Roman armor or swords or metal of any kind around? Its dust now, cannot be kept in normal conditions and not rust away.
Reformer hands wrote this post
>Everything I don't like is a reformer a childs guide to winning arguments
Yes and no. Yes, the US never reveals the full capacity of its systems because why would they, no, if stratcom is saying 'we need to replace these,' it's because the auditing supports that. I have no idea who you go to to design a new gen of ICBMs. I mean, Boeing and SpaceX, I guess.
>Boeing and SpaceX
SpaceX is pretty much the only company in the world that is somehow less reliable than Boeing
Boeing's planes are in the news it seems like at least once every 6 months for falling apart in mid air or disappearing over the ocean
yeah but musk says dumb stuff on twitter
and let me guess, orange man bad/mean tweets so they should both be put in timeout til after the election?
Spscex shit blows up like every month
You can keep repeating this but SpaceX has successfully flown it's entire Commercial Crew contract with zero failures before Boeing has launched their capsule to the ISS once. You're a twitter brained moron who sees a flying test stand explode and immediately extrapolates that to the rockets they actually sell seats on instead of looking at the actual failure rate.
>twitter brained
It's called X now, get with the times moron
twice a year, and only with the new design that they explicitly don't trust yet and aren't flying payloads or people on
>virtually every day
roughly once every four days, or twice a week
>if i exaggerate, no one on here will be able to check facts on my exaggeration :^)
Not since the Biden Administration went full-court-press on stopping SpaceX from continuing its Starship test program. They went from almost a dozen test launches over a bit more than a year to only two test launches in all of last year. Fish and Wildlife--yes, them--got into the bureaucratic dogpile trying to shut SpaceX down because "Twitter man bad".
Meanwhile, SpaceX has Falcon 9 first stages that are approaching 20 flights. They haven't had a mission failure in years and are now statistically the most reliable launchers in history.
blowing up a rocket in protected wetlands because the moron in charge thought a deluge system was a waste of time was a bad move and everyone knew it before it happened
> protected wetlands
there is nothing in the area that is actually endangered or in need of real "protection" just some random shrubs and shit. As long as the entire 5 mile surrounding area isn't razed to the ground it's fine.
What are you talking about? The first flight was terminated dozens of miles offshore. The whole "wetland" thing is just an attempt to cancel Musk because he bought Twitter and went pro-free speech.
I think he's mistaking the concrete being thrown around for the rocket blowing up. Nobody cares about the rocket but the chunks of concrete being thrown were a legitimate concern. As for the wetlands, you don't have enough expertise to make judgements on that and the people who do have said expertise have said that some of the shit he's been doing has been degrading said wetlands, so I'll go with the experts thanks.
the frick are you talking about? falcon 9 is one of the most reliable rockets in history now, if not the most. If you're talking about starship you're a fricking moron, it's a prototype, prototypes explode
If the news cared about catastrophic failure of SpaceX's shit, we would never hear the end of it. Instead it's treated like an everyday occurrence, because it is.
Your twitter brain rot is terminal.
Now do the boosters
Sure
SpaceX
>246 successful landings out of 255 attempts
Literally every other launch company in the world combined
>0 successful landings out of 0 attempts
The boosters that are ultimately expendable once the payload reaches orbit and which getting back intact is a nice bonus?
The twitter brain thinks a booster falling off a barge after 16 flights and 200 tons to orbit is a larger failure than SLS throwing away 4 RS-25s on every flight. They don't care about reality, only boer man bad.
The boosters not coming back isn't mission critical
Losing a giant section of an aircraft's fuselage is
>Moving the goalpost
Just apologize and say you were wrong
Imagine if 0.7% of airline flights had catastrophic failures. There would be a cash per day and people would be afraid to fly. 0.7% is unacceptable when the risk is a fiery explosion and certain death
>comparing unmanned launches to commercial, public transit
Those are so wildly different at basically every level, you're moronic for even trying.
Ok then, an 0.7% chance that when you launch your nuke that it explodes as a gigantic dirty bomb on your homeland instead. That is an unacceptable risk. If you disagree, you're functionally no different than a filthy vatnik with their nuclear arsenal that will do exactly that: Perform with shit reliability, albeit for a different reason.
>an 0.7% chance that when you launch your nuke that it explodes as a gigantic dirty bomb on your homeland instead
that's not how it works, at all, you pathetic hysterical b***h
>comparing enterprise, cargo, rocket launches to doomsday events where even 50% of them could fall back onto the launchpad and it wouldn't change a damn thing because everyone is fricked
>That is an unacceptable risk.
Considering scenario where the nukes actually fly? It absolutely is.
Even if they do scatter nuclear material around and don't just flop without doing anything, the damage done by a dirty bomb or two blowing up over isolated missile silos in the middle of nowhere would barely register when hundreds of your biggest cities go up in flames as the enemy nukes arrive.
And outside of this unlikely scenario they do their job as deterrent perfectly well.
let's see the failure rate of your orbital delivery platform of choice then
it is literally the safest and most reliable launch vehicle in the world with the lowest insurance rates. it's painfully obvious you're just some redditor
there tends to be explosions during testing of the shit they use. that's why they're largely, or completely, unmanned
>Boeing's planes are in the news it seems like at least once every 6 months
Funny how it's ever only third world pilots that can't into flying them. Almost like they're low IQ by genetics, or something. Also, what does a 737 Max have to do with Boeing's ability to produce missiles? You do know a commercial airliner isn't an ICBM or BM interceptor, right?
Anon, a door plug popped out on a brand new plane flying in the US. That's a massive procedural issue at the factory, you can't pajeet software a door.
Hey, guess what happens when you stop using your unionized labour and go find rednecks willing to work for peanuts
>you get monkeys
the Charleston plant isn't union but is absolutely completely hamstrung by union rules, so they have the worst of both worlds right now or something
Blaming those MAX crashes on turd world piloting when Boeing even admitted after the fact it was an engineering flaw is a shit tier argument.
Boeing simply got lucky it wasn’t an American or Euro air carrier that crashed first.
And just a heads up, I’m a technician at United and we’re STILL waiting for an airworthiness directive to stop the plug doors from falling out in mid-air lmfao. So there’s you’re “Boeing” in 2023.
The fact that nobody went to prison over MCAS is outrageous.
>I'm a technician at United
Legitimate question anon, why is only the 737-9 grounded? I've seen online that other 737s have the same plug door design and they haven't been.
Yeah just the MAX 9’s. The MAX 8’s don’t have the plug door that failed. And the NG’s are still the solid workhorses they’ve been for decades now and are completely unaffected by this.
I guess that bodes well for the E-7A order.
supposedly aiming for 6/year within the next 3-4 years.
The Ozzie E-7s are based on the 737-700, which is NG, not MAX. Is the USAF ordering MAX, or NG? Can Boing Boing still *make* NGs if ordered, or are they only capable of building MAX now?
The NG production line WAS in danger of shutting down, but with all these new E-7A orders, boeing confirmed the NG production line would keep going, at least until the orders are filled.
Gogin with the MAX for the USAF would require years of development work as the changes mad for the NG to make it an E-7 are already pretty big, there would need to be a whole DIFFERENT set of changes that would need to be done on a MAX as they're not built the same way.
So yeah, NG production line lives on, USAF E-7As are NGs.
Thanks! I couldn't find anything that said definitively what model the USAF asked for.
It's wild to me that the E-7 was around for YEARS (they could have jumped on the E-7 train in the late 90s/early 2000s even) and the USAF was so fricking indecisive it took them until the NG was basically obsolete and nearing the end of production to finally decide to procure it.
Even crazier is that it's basically a US design anyway. It's not like the Australians were holding anything particularly secret up their sleeve, if the USAF decided they wanted a hundred of the things it'd be fairly straightforward to get it set up.
Was it political shit? I know they were planning one based on a 767 or some shit but why'd it take them that long to figure it out?
I think it was money, or rather the lack of it. It didn't help that this happened during the period of Continuing Resolutions, rather than proper annual budgets. And, Congress can be pretty dumb when it comes to big-ticket items. Some things they'll waste billions on, others they'll pinch pennies until they've wasted far more than they've saved (the B-52 re-engining, first proposed in the 1990s as a cost-saving measure, is an excellent example of penny-wise/pound-foolish).
In this case, the "default" decision was just to kick the can down the road year after year as the E-3s got older. Apparently, it just got to the point where the E-3s cannot be upgraded or reasonably maintained anymore. And money is still tight (for the military, at least), and the Wedgetail is the only *active* AEW&C program being made by primarily-US vendors... which saves several years and billions of dollars over starting from scratch with a 767 or KC-46-derived platform (Japan's E-767 is far too out-of-date to even be considered).
In many ways, it's a similar situation to the F-15EX, which wouldn't exist except that the F-15E line is still active with F-15QA production and can produce new planes on a reasonable timeline and budget. The E-7A is undoubtedly not the best clean-sheet design, but it's the cheapest and fastest option to get the job done, and the commonality with the P-8 doesn't hurt.
No, the MCAS would not have caused a crash with a crew that had an ounce of sense. MCAS automatically adjusts trim; all 737s have a pair of trim wheels that clatter noisily when they spin. Stopping MCAS from making a mistake is as easy as declaring "RUNAWAY TRIM" and grabbing the trim wheel with one hand, then flying out of the conditions. It takes some serious training failures in order to not be able to figure out that the trim wheels spinning rapidly on their own is the cause of your problems.
The plug door, on the other hand, looks like your typical union shop level of effort these days. At least, that's my initial impression. There appears to be no structural failure; the plug door simply wasn't attached properly.
SpaceX flies missions to orbit virtually every day, they do it more cheaply than literally anyone else, and they're the only one that can (and has, several times now) put American astronauts in orbit. They're very good at what they do, which is probably why the military goes increasingly to them for spook shit, and why even NASA gives any valuable missions to them.
Are you a literal fricking moron anon? SpaceX is literally the most reliable launch company in human history. Nobody has had more successful launches in a row. No launcher has ever been as successful or launched as much as Falcon 9. Like, that's just objective fact.
That said no they're not a good choice here, SpaceX does liquid they have absolutely zero solid fuel anything. Totally the wrong thing for ICBMs. But not because they aren't reliable as hell.
The Falcon 9 has a 99.993% success rate. SpaceX is the most reliable launch provider in world history by a huge margin.
>The Falcon 9 has a 99.993% success rate
If you want to get more specific, Falcon 9 Block 5 has a 100% success rate.
231 launches and all full successes.
The Falcon 9 Block 5 also has a 98% Booster landing success rate with 236 successes out of 240 attempts.
I will never fly in a boeing aircraft. Not joking. If that kid and his mom weren't strapped in their seatbelts they would've been sucked out of the plane and fallen 16,000 ft and become paste on the ground. Least reliable and worst designed shit of any MIC company in the last 30 years.
ah yes, the company with the highest launch safety rating and the lowest insurance prices and the highest launch cadence and the only reusable launcher. is less reliable than Boeing?
>Yes, the US never reveals the full capacity of its systems because why would they,
>Muh US MILTARY has super duper advanced space age tech behind the scenes/ in area 51!
This has always been an exaggeration/cope but is even more so in the modern day, you might have been able to develop experimental jets in total secrecy in the 60s but in the age of the internet/ smart phones and people being willing to commit felonies for tiktok clout you aren't hiding next gen military hardware from the public for long.
Space X literally launches more rockets every year than the rest of the world combined
>less reliable than Boeing
Cool where's the starliner then?
Sure is frick isn't visiting the ISS that's for sure.
I hate Muskrats so fricking much. The main problem with SpaceX is that it's run by a moron that's convinced himself he's a genius, so he knows better than the government that hired his company. See the recent frickup in Ukraine, you don't want that, not even a remote possibility in something as critical as a nuclear missile.
Starlink is not for military use and no one wanted to foot the bill for the terminals.
>Make moronic claim
>It gets refuted with objective data
>RREEEEE YOU'RE JUST A FANBOY
many such cases, sad
>The main problem with SpaceX is that it's run by a moron
There wouldnt be SpaceX without Musk moron. Us space industry would be decades behind without him. Thats just a fact
you have to be an special kind of idiot to think that a man that can make an profitable all American automotive with exclusively Eletric cars is an moron.
He made his cars 10 years ahead of the american competition coming from behind.
while true, unless Tesla can turn things around they're going to be irrelevant within a decade. All major car manufacturers will have electric platforms in non-luxury price brackets within a few years with much higher quality control than Tesla. No panel gaps or other bullshit to deal with, and a robust dealership network and a large network of trained mechanics.
Already Porsche has made the higher end Teslas look like dogshit, the F-150 Lightning is generally thought to be better than the Cybertruck while being cheaper. Etc, etc.
For trucks, come back to me when someone builds an electric with a true 8' bed (meaning 8' with gate closed). Not even Tesla does it.
the sierra EV has around 10' if you lower the back seats, but yeah at the moment they're all ~6' at most.
Yeah. 8' without any alterations masterrace. I'd settle for 7' and a Ma Deuce turret ring on the back seats.
>This has always been an exaggeration/cope but is even more so in the modern day, you might have been able to develop experimental jets in total secrecy in the 60s but in the age of the internet/ smart phones and people being willing to commit felonies for tiktok clout you aren't hiding next gen military hardware from the public for long.
Except you know, the US has programs like the RQ-180, which we know exists and has been deployed, but despite that, NOBODY has ever been able to get an actual picture of the thing.
>NOBODY has ever been able to get an actual picture of the thing.
On the ground anyway.
There's only blurry or distant pictures of what we believe is RQ-180 but nothing definitive. Not too much different from X-plane sightings.
Not a psyop, more like lobbying for the new missiles.
No, it's the precursor to buying a fleet of new modern missiles that will mog the frick out of everyone for the next 100 years. Or to an even more extensive and extensive modernization program for the Minutemen.
yeah, this is manufacturing consent for the plan to get brand new ICBMs after Russia's chimpouts
>that will mog the frick out of everyone for the next 100 years.
They wont, the Sentinel missiles are basically just going to be modernized versions of the Minuteman missiles that can be be maintained with modern technology. (and thats all they have to be because they ensure MAD either way)
>new modern missiles that will mog the frick out of everyone for the next 100 years.
Stop being a child
Nobody's stopping the missiles in either direction in sufficient numbers to be willing to ever use their own, every dollar past MAD is a dollar wasted
MAD is a meme. If the war in Ukraine should have taught you anything it's that Russia has nowhere near the nuclear arsenal it claims to have. Russia claims to have a nuclear arsenal 5x the size of Britain's yet spends less money on their arsenal than the Bongs do and the Russian military budget=/=Russian military spending. Commissar Embezzlov will see a significant portion of the alleged nuclear weapons funding.
>But what about China!
Chinesium military tech based on Russhit tech. I'd be surprised of they even have an arsenal the size of the Bongs or Frogs, nevermind of as high a quality.
didn't the anal empire lose orbital capacity despite 10x the budget? budget seems to not have high correlation with capacity of military research
was this gibberish supposed to mean anything?
The American empire lost the capacity to reach orbit until Musk (by their luck) happen to leapfrog over them, and they are still trying to cancel him.
NASA had a higher budget, yet they lost orbit capacity, and Russia maintained it, why?
>The American empire lost the capacity to reach orbit
what nonsense is this. are you really this moronic?
what happened in those two decades after dismantling the shuttle? a shuttle which they had to get rid of because they started blowing up, ie lost the capacity to run even the shuttle?
two decades of delays and paying russians for a ferry, until by chance their enemy Musk was able to give them rides, at least saving the embarrasment of paying the russians
>what happened in those two decades after dismantling the shuttle? a shuttle which they had to get rid of because they started blowing up, ie lost the capacity to run even the shuttle?
You're completely moronic. You're unable to even form a coherent sentence.
they had to get rid of the shuttle, unable to even maintain the shuttle, and for two decades until elon, lost orbital capacity, having to pay the russians for rides to the space station
presenting no alternative facts, just frothing at the mouth
Your nonsense is so idiotic it doesn't even need to be addressed. What else is there to do except laugh at you?
I think you're running a shill script. the facts are spelled out for you, and rather than contradicting any of them, you throw squid ink. Probably Human Resources would complain if you acknowledged any of them even to disagree with them
there's no facts, just idiocy that can only be spewed by a 60IQ shitskin.
imagine claiming US couldn't reach orbit, lol
1) You're speaking of MANNED spaceflight. The US kept launching satellites into space the whole time. Given that the only destination for astronauts at the time was ISS, this meant dealing with Russia (thank Clinton and Gore for that!), which was expensive, stupid, and embarrassing, but not exactly the death of the nation.
2) It wasn't two decades.
Final Shuttle flight: July 2011
First Crew Dragon flight to ISS: May 2020
That's just under 9 years. As a side note, Dragon cargo missions began in 2012.
Partially true, I mean Norks did more with nukes than most of europe despite being absolutely destitute. You can say they had help from whoever but that doesn't matter they got them on a shoestring while much wealthier nations struggle just to maintain what they have.
It's less about budget and more about determination. But that only goes so far too little and there just isn't enough to make anything happen, too much and you're just going to have inefficiency and asking to have money embezzled.
My homie you are literally making shit up.
America went to the moon, then went to low earth orbit (shuttle), then went to nowhere at all (shuttle dismantlement), despite ever-increasing budget. Russia in comparison maintained soyuz
Coinciding with the nazi running nasa (von braun), followed by people the nazi directly trained directly, replaced by political hires, who unable to build rockets focused on gaia worship and muslim self-esteem (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html)
lost their capacity to get to orbit. has to pay the russians to ferry them, despite ever increasing piles of money
which part is made up?
>nazi running nasa (von braun)
lol, more moronic shit
if you are telling me that the nazi was not head of the entire lunar program during its peak capacity, who was in charge?
And they definitely won't be full of chinese chips with backdoors out the ass or anything.
>And they definitely won't be full of chinese chips with backdoors out the ass or anything.
No, as even Chinese missiles aren't filled with US chips: they're filled with counterfeit US chips. Also, literally no American missile has any Chinese chips in it, as China can't produce chips.
there's not a single chinese chip in US weapons, both due to national security concerns and the fact that china doesn't produce the high performing chips that would go in there. Even if they were to make it in there they'd be from real China, aka Taiwan.
Yeah I think a few things have gotten exemptions to be fabbed in Taiwan or SK or Japan over the years, but not China.
China has been building lots of deep underground bases. The time to nuke chink buys off the face of the earth has passed sadly. We should still try though
there's no underground base that can withstand a direct surface nuke blast, and for the few ones burrowed deep inside mountains there are nuclear bunker busters that would collapse even them.
lol no. missile/rocketry isn't advancing in any significant way.
Correction: current missiles already mog the frick out of everyone and will for the next 100 years.
Yes it is, we just don't know what new tech they have planned for the next gen ICBM yet. The only reason they wouldn't improve it further is if they believe that current tech is sufficient to deter any threats for the forseeable future, which it most likely is.
its the dod being realistic about what they can get congress to pay for
The US is spending $100 billion to replace them with the Sentinel program
Should've called it Secondman.
The $100 billion is for the acronym team, no funds have actually been allocated for the design of the missile yet.
They just want funding for new missiles
Is everyone here moronic? The Minuteman III is already in the processof being replaced?
>Is everyone here moronic? The Minuteman III is already in the processof being replaced?
Yes, so he's putting this out there to ward off congress getting cold feet. This is preventative information warfare
frickin 1/4 of Congress is getting paid by the companies making the damn things, and basically anyone on a committee that decides ICBM shit also is getting $$$.
I don't see why it's necessary to convince them further with this kinda shit.
I fully expect them to demand an attempt be made to modernize them anyway even while the replacements are being spun up. If 1/4th of them are paid by the company making the replacement, then another 1/4th are paid by companies that want to find a way to worm into the program and need to have work made for them.
The Minutemen missiles legitimately are just fricking ancient. They were originally built in the ‘60s.
Bit this is definitely a tactic by the DoD to force Congress to go all in the Sentinel replacement program.
how would they even go about removing/replacing all those missiles without giving up right where they all have been hiding this entire time? i always figured this was a big reason they never 'upgraded' them.. it'd be almost impossible with the technology we have now to do that on a secret base without totally blowing your cover
The locations of the silos aren't secret, my guy. That's what the submarines are for. Kinda hard to conceal the construction of a 200-foot-deep 100-foot-wide hole, plus the subsequent 30-foot-wide blast door that goes over it.
it was probably much harder to detect something like that from the other side of the world in 1969 than it is today
By the time ICBM missiles and their accompanying silos were developed, both the US and USSR had spy satellites. The US deliberately built their missile silo farms out in the open in three of the US’ least populated states to get the USSR to waste the majority of their missiles on the most expendable states.
Not to mention, it saved money for the US in the long run considering the many, MANY schemes the USSR tried to conceal their land based ICBMs.
Please educate yourself on basic nuclear strategy the silos were never secret
https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR
Why would they even openly state this unless the replacements are already in the works? Is it just mind games for the other world powers?
The minutemen aren't broken, he's just saying they're on their way out. Even if they all WERE broken, we still have our sub missiles and airlaunched missiles to maintain MAD until they are replaced.
It’s for the benefit of Congress to shut up the Congress members who will just go “why don’t we just make Minuteman IV?” The previous intended replacement for Minuteman got canned because they figured just upgrading Minuteman was cheaper.
>We don't have a new missile ready to replace Minuteman III
>Congress is involved
Oh no.
>Why would they even openly state this unless the replacements are already in the works?
Because they are
We don’t NEED this many nukes that’s why. The three largest ready to launch nuclear powers in the world are the US navy, the US army, and the US airforce. Russia has a lot of warheads but basically no launchers at this point. We could shitcan every nuke from two of the three branches and still have enough nukes for MAD. We won’t for the same reason we got into that nonsense in the first place which was inter service rivalry to avoid having their budgets cut to boost another.
>but basically no launchers at this point
that's not true. they're building new solid fuel RS-24s which definitely are a threat, especially since they're a MIRVed topol-m derivative. Sure, that's only about 150 launchers plus the outdated stuff but that still trumps the number of launchable warheads china has.
No. Lost technology happens with some civilian shit sometimes too. There were so many layers of secretiveness in some projects that we unironically can't build them anymore. In this case US can obviously build something better but can't replicate the Minuteman III
>"We can't do it at all. ... That thing is so old that, in some cases, the drawings don't exist anymore [to guide upgrades],"
That's one of those moronic things I've never understood. Why does this keep happening? Why aren't there copies made, which are stored in safe places, and that are also scanned and kept on digital backups in some vault somewhere?
It's happened to so many weapons and pieces of technology that I can't even fathom it. Even if the thing is obsolete, the design documents would still have historical importance.
because the missile is made of a thousand billion different tiny parts all made by different companies who all keep their own drawings in their own files.
>"well just make them send copies to a central archive"
sure, but the part they make is actually made up of other parts made by someone else that you, the government, will never interact with, and they don't have those drawings - or what the frick ever.
it's not like they're just eyeballing it; effort is put into maintaining documents. a lot of effort, actually. it's just hard.
What the frick are you talking about? Most weapons and engineering projects weren't made that way back in the day. It's become increasingly more common today, as chips are often produced in other countries, and engineering projects are multinational, but that wasn't the case with the original nukes, the Apollo program or the Minuteman 3s, which all apparently had their schematics lost at some point.
different departments are the same thing as different companies when your project/organisation is big enough.
i can tell you've never worked for any seriously big organisation lol.
WTF are you on about? You think NASA engineers designed and built every component of the Saturn V or something? There were always dozens of contractors and subcontractors involved with a project of that scale.
The Apollo Program had over a dozen prime contractors and god only knows how many subcontractors. Thousands, probably.
Liquid rockets and solid suborbitals are two totally different things
The post I responded to gave the Apollo program as an example.
Knowledge transfer and retention in organizations is extremely difficult. The basic issue is that you need a ton of people to collaborate effectively and the process can go wrong at any point along the way. For example, one of the biggest issues companies tend to run into when they implement a database type system to store information is that the people who already know things have more pressing day to day concerns than writing down things they already know. There's no immediate benefit to them, and sometimes there's actually a cost since now the company can train a replacement easier. So they don't use the system or they half-ass use it and their explanations are worthless to anyone except themselves, but the company has a hard time identifying that because on paper the records exist and often the only people qualified to evaluate how useful they are... the same people who wrote them poorly in the first place.
As far as losing documents, my guess is likely these projects kept information siloed for security and documentation mostly stayed with the actual project teams. And for all the historically relevant final versions of the designs, there's probably a thousand pages of ideas and iterations to wade through, which might not be possible if you don't know what you're looking at. None of this would be a problem at the time, since the people working with all of this stuff do know what they're looking at. Still, some 30 odd years later when the original workers retire/die all their shit just gets tossed in a shredder or vault. Even if it is organized, the person who did the organizing is now dead along with whoever was in charge of throwing all that stuff in the vault/shredder in the first place. So worst case you don't know where it is, if it exists, or what form its in, or how to efficiently get through it. And you can't just have anyone dig through it all, because there might be nuclear secrets in there.
Add to that bosses that don't see the point in maintaining or checking documentation. In grad school we had a dozen folders in the lab with authorized protocols stretching back a decade that were occasionally either printed out or photocopied from a book but were mostly in faded pencil, pen, or colored marker in the handwriting of who knows how many different people. A new undergrad student got fed up with this and decided to take every protocol we routinely used, type them up, include useful diagrams, and print out enough copies for everyone in the lab to have them and a few to be left over. The only problem is she had no experience on most of these protocols so they were infested with incorrect units, incorrect steps or equipment settings, and so on. The head of the lab never read through them to make sure they were correct but he sure as hell blamed graduate and undergraduate students when they wasted materials and time by following bad instructions. On top of all that he never saw the utility in digitizing any of the protocols or figuring out how to set up some sort of shared network that lab members could access to look at them.
You neglected to mention the "efficiency experts" and HR hacks constantly firing people with deep institutional knowledge because they "don't have any value anymore, you can replace them with a high school dropout for $20K and no benefits." I've watched entire offices get "cleaned" out where they just went in and filled half a dozen 30 gallon trash bags with "useless" paper and incinerated it it after terminating some guy with 29 years in the company ... because if they made 30 years the company would would be on the hook for a fully vested pension as originally promised under the original terms of hire.
Just look at this mentally ill frickhole:
>people should just be shot when they turn 60
>I've watched
No you haven't. I guarantee you've literally never had a job in your life. Post pay stub, or go leave, you inbred pakoid welfare leech.
>you inbred pakoid welfare leech
Is this a new meme
I watched a Fortune 50 company's IT department get ruined after "consultants" convinced management that all developers were interchangeable cogs who could be thrown onto any project needed at any time regardless of their skillsets or institutional knowledge. Productivity fell off a cliff, and we spent more time in meetings and documenting business cases than in developing or documenting business rules or writing actual code. And that was 20 years ago.
>There's no immediate benefit to them, and sometimes there's actually a cost since now the company can train a replacement easier.
I work in an engineering company and this is actually forbidden.
Why? Because you can't bill anyone for making training materials, manuals and standard operation procedures and believe or not, companies are not willing to pay for it, even when tons of new people arrive over the years and have basic isses that then take more time to solve than writing manuals in the first place.
Some worst scenarios I've seen are related to this - e.g. the only person who knows the code of software X and has developed it over the years, is retiring. Nobody thought it would be good to train a replacement. Nobody thought the software even needs administration and further upgrades. They leave and something huge like the inventory management system crashes and not a single project can be finished until it's fixed.
These things happen and it's only because development takes money and high up in the organization they really don't want to give up that money.
This is top secret shit so only limited copies would have been made in ths first place. A lot of them probably destroyed in the 60s when they were mo longer required because 'hey these missiles are going get replaced in 10 years anyway right?'
Because a lot of the time those "drawings" were personal, reference notes of the people manufacturing/assembling/programming the things. That's what happened with the Saturn rockets. It's not that we can't make something "equivalent", it's that we can't make EXACTLY a 60's Saturn IV anymore because tons of the process was lost to time as the project closed, people moved on, retired, and their notes went into the trash, and their knowledge died with them. Blueprints alone won't get you very far with a complicated assembly like a rocket. There's tons of minutia that goes into it. "If I deburr this edge like this, it doesn't fit, but if I do it like this, it's fine." "If the welder is set to normal amps for this process, the whole thing cracks, but if I turn it down and go a bit slower, it won't." "If we solder component X first, and then Y, it fries component X from spill heat". Those are all things learned from trial and error that don't get put on blueprints, it gets shared around the specific shop making that component and 99.99% of the time, the head engineers never hear a word about it.
Saturn V was basically artisanal too. Translating the designs to a modern reliable CNC production chain would be more effort than just idk making a Starship or whatever. Starship was designed to be easy to make with MODERN tooling.
I've read anecdotes about the F-1 engine for example, they had to do crazy weird shit to get it to work in a cluster for the first stage since the engines would work by themselves but putting them close together would result in weird flow instabilities and shit. Starship is dealing with this (see the images of like 6 engines being out after launch during the first flight test), and the Soviet counterpart to the Saturn V had the same problem to the point all but one (I think) of their launches failed because of it. Being able to reproduce an F-1 DOES NOT MEAN that you can put it to a reproduction first stage and have it work.
Reproduction/emulation of older computer hardware/software has the same issue too believe it or not. I can't be bothered to find it right now but I remember a paper by a major Gameboy emulator developer or something talking about one specific game that on hardware would run fine, but in an emulator (which was notionally accurate) would freeze. The guy figured out that it was some weird corner case in the actual hardware that, due to the limitations of the time, was designed around by the game developers, and if you removed said corner case the game would stop working since it relied upon it.
>Reproduction/emulation of older computer hardware/software has the same issue too believe it or not. I can't be bothered to find it right now but I remember a paper by a major Gameboy emulator developer or something talking about one specific game that on hardware would run fine, but in an emulator (which was notionally accurate) would freeze. The guy figured out that it was some weird corner case in the actual hardware that, due to the limitations of the time, was designed around by the game developers, and if you removed said corner case the game would stop working since it relied upon it.
Up until a few years ago, Dolphin wouldn't even boot the Rogue Squadron games for a similar reason. Those wizards at Factor 5 found so many little hacks they figured out for particle effects, PiP and such that even the engineers at Nintendo were amazed. Might be better today, but even after they got it to boot, it still ran like absolute ass unless you had a 7th gen i7, and that just got it barely playable, with tons of graphic glitches.
>and are lost so often that it would have often been cheaper and more useful to just use a brand new one
see
Where are you even getting these 2010 era Tory Bruno fever dreams? Why are you so emotionally invested in this that you'll make up bullshit that a quick google search discards?
bro you are so twitter brained, you are living in an alternate reality. Please stop getting butt blasted at an autistic south african on the internet.
Do not respond to the obvious troll/moron.
>This is just a PsyOp against our adversaries right?
It is a psyop, for more money for more defense spending
Explain this to my tarded ass, what is it that actually needs to be replaced/renewed? The warheads or the delivery sticks? Or just the fuel?
Everything deteriorates with age and not all electronic degradation is predictable. It therefore is most logical to replace the system rather than piecemeal. At high compexities not all failure modes are predictable nor fully understood.
Replacement cost is pocket change for a fresh process unencumbered by legacy.
Rrright, but it doesn't make sense for the missiles to not have discrete macro parts, at least as rough as "warhead" and "delivery system"(missile body). The latter should be relatively easy to repair and replace wholesale compared to the former, surely?
For new ones perhaps but when performance was critical modularity a la aircraft missiles would take second place. Even had that been done old tech remains old and clinging to it desperately rather silly when new systems may be made effective in ways the public do not need to know.
>when new systems may be made effective in ways the public do not need to know.
but the public already knows about super fusing which would imply something even deadlier exists, are you a knower?
Also note "wholesale" doesn't apply to these tiny production numbers. Aerospace is not making lawnmowers. There are few economies of scale in the common sense.
The warheads get refurbished every few years, but are due soon. The delivery sticks are ancient, and really need to be replaced; solid rocket fuel goes bad after a couple decades, metal rusts, components wear out. And finally, the command and control systems are vintage '60s and '70s, which is difficult and expensive to maintain; I mean, who builds 14" floppy drives anymore?
So the Sentinel program is intended to replace the whole lot. A clean-sheet design, limited only by the size of the existing launch silos (because it's expensive enough as it is without digging all new silos, too). If executed well, it should end up with new systems in place that will last for several decades and be cheaper and easier to maintain. One potential downside, of course, is that the command and control systems won't be quite as hack-proof as a 14" floppy disk that hackers have no way to replicate.
will the new missiles have carplay finally???
Getting a new car with Apple CarPlay was great tbh
Adaptive Cruise Control even more so
well, if we hadnt spent the last 80 years making the rest of the world frickgin hate us, maybe we could have so many friends, we wouldnt need this bullshit. just a thought
>t.
D5s with three warheads or less for have longer range and is more modern. Just stick them in silos. Just saved you Americans billions in tax dollar, no need to thank me.
For extra survivability you can float the silos under the Great Lakes like doomsday sea mines
Time to donate them to Ukraine for disposal then
Send them the Minutemen with conventional warheads.
Anyone point out yet that the ABM upgrade/replacement program has been going since 2010 when The Rock HUSSEIN Obama approved it?
or that the USA has deployed MIRV warheads on independently guided HYPERSANIC missiles for 53 fricking years now?
no?
frick you all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel
>13 years
>no progress
>DoD start doomerposting
Ah, BRIC cucks are shilling this shit, again after finding out Chinese ICBMs are filled with water instead of fuel, and the silo doors jam shut? KEK. Firstly, the MMIII is continuously upgraded (see below), and is more advanced than anything Russia or China fields right now (see picrel). Second, it's talking about decades, and decades out being able to upgrade it until 2100 or so. Finally, it is already getting replaced by the Sentinel program, but, you know all this already.
Go leave, you inbred pakoid leeching off Britain. Or are you the chinsect twink from HK that leeches off White Britains? https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/454413911/
2007 marked the date of the final installation of the NS-50 Missile Guidance System.
https://minutemanmissile.com/missileguidancesystem.html
>Propulsion Replacement Program upgraded all three rocket stages
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/icbm/mmiii-010423.htm
>Launch Control Center upgrade
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/14196780/upgrade-minuteman-iii-nuclear-missiles
MMIII booster stage upgrades:
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/icbm/mmiii-010423.htm
Guidance upgrades:
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/rf-analog/article/16714802/boeing-to-upgrade-missile-guidance-systems-on-minuteman-iii-landbased-nuclear-rockets
https://minutemanmissile.com/missileguidancesystem.html
>Chinese ICBMs are filled with water instead of fuel
Source? This is funny to me.
The last 4-6 months of purges in the PLA was mainly in the rocket forces, rumors are massive levels of corruption and many missiles are filled with water instead of fuel, lots of ICBM silos also don't have functional lids that can open fully.
Checks out.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intelligence-shows-flawed-china-missiles-led-xi-jinping-to-purge-military
They, also, use counterfeit US chips.
>WHY IS XI FIRING ALL THE TOP BRASS IN THE ROCKET FORCE?
>Xi's political purges and moronic shit having a probably accidental positive effect as corruption he didn't expect is uncovered when the new appointee sits at the desk and finds the sacks of cash the last guy forgot
Frick, Xi has mostly ruined Chinkland's long game but now we just have to assassinate him. Intentionally or otherwise he actually improved military readiness in this particular instance, and that I cannot abide.
Total Chink Death, must be enacted without strikeback capability.
There were 3 or 8 threads on it in the last 48 hours on /k/. Search one of the archives.
btw, that graph is just US intelligence estimation at the moment, which was around 1976-1978. In realiy the estimation was overblown and the missiles' accuracy was way worse.
>January 2021
Wow, it's almost like the LGM-35 has been in development for years for exactly this reason.
how is this news? that's quite literally the point of why the USAF is building LGM-35 and why the planning and budgeting for it began a decade ago.
>immediately falls into PrepHole autism fit
Do you have anything to add to the discussion? There's plenty I could post, but you're giving me no reason to post it.
Here:
I've said all that needs to be said, inbred pakoid. Now, answer: "Pakoid, what does a commercial airliner have to do with ICBMs or BM interceptors?"
Hey atleast they arnt filled with water
Replacement will be based on a SpaceX or Axiom design modified for sitting a long time.
What are they not fast enough to help settlements?
well Russia's shit has got to be fricked then
Military sitting around using old dogshit from the 60's still
What else is new
Can't have some sorta straight forward gradual replacement at a normal time schedule, has to wait till everything is fricked then spend insane amounts of money paying contractors to reinvent the wheel
13 billion$ to develop it? It's just a solid rocket booster...
and a $264 billion life cycle cost
Also, W87 mod 1 is being developed for the LGM-35 as well, which will cost a few billion to develop and manufacture.
All the important warheads are sitting in Trident missiles carries by Ohios, Minutemans have been sitting there as a placeholder since the 80s. Even when MX was being fielded they ended up just putting them into existing silos instead of hiding them in mountain complexes, super hard silos and other shit they tried, because there was no point spending this much on it.
New ICBM boosters are paired with the next gen interceptor program which costs more initially but is cheaper and more efficient in the long run.
So, what I'm getting out of the thread so far is that, several dozen or several hundred Minuteman IIIs are available surplus to donate to a worthy cause? I'm all in on that, even if they have to change out the nuke for a conventional warhead. Imagine 3 or ten dozen delivering a MOAB pretty much anywhere, at least half a dozen different configurations for detonation height (or depth), etc. Better than scrapping them, and seems a reasonable possibility that a "few" dozen could be accelerated for disposal with prejudice in the very near future.
>and seems a reasonable possibility that a "few" dozen could be accelerated for disposal with prejudice in the very near future.
The reason there has been such a huge taboo against testing in recent decades is the management realising that this stuff is having trouble working. why would they organise a public spectacle over it?
>organize
That would be a key word. A very public publicity stunt where you give the chassis an overhaul for imminent, one-way use. There are dozens of candidates available that fit that criteria. Pull three dozen from immediate service, drop them into a 90-day overhaul program for turnkey delivery upon certification for 24 months use window. Some may not certify to complete such an overhaul, but the ones that do will deliver 100%. Then the next three dozen likely candidates can be evaluated for the same treatment. I like to think that represents at least 50 juicy targets maybe 60 and upwards.
We need to come up with more creative waste disposal plans like these.
>STRATCOM Chief Says STRATCOM needs new toys
To be fair, they do. But don't read too much into it. He's just shilling for the LGM-35 Sentinel program.
FULL ON COMPETENCY CRISIS!
US can't make anything anymore.
Ok Boomer
Our nukes don't even work anymore. And anyone who could fix them is already dead.
>our
You dont even live in America.
India's nukes never worked, Raj.
The one a few months earlier worked fine.
Since the death of Hyman G. Rickover the US Nuclear Programs have all deteriorated significantly, Rickover single handedly made sure the entire nuclear arsenal of the navy was in tip top shape and by extension the land based cousins. Without him we would have had a crisis in the 70's due to Carters ineptitude.
We need another Rickover to get everything in shape, I mean for fricks sake we can't even get parts to repair the facilities because everyone who made them is out of business or dead.
This has been well documented over the years and it's not exclusive to the US, if anything the US is doing quite well compared to everyone else.
>Admiral
>A US navy rank
>Wants to retire a USAF asset
Shocking.
>2021
Yes. They opted to build a new missile on the cheap using established components and awkwardly it came out that Minutemen II don't actually have the proper reach for China. The budget has overrun to an absurd degree and is subject to time delays because they need to restart a very complicated industrial base where only 1 company can now make the nukes (Boing pulled out) and unlike Russia US components were made to last so have largely sat dormant.
tbh I don't know why the US is bothering with Sentinel. I get it, in a way, but MAD and the triad seem anachronistic to the kinds of war the US will fight and all you're getting is the missiles of today being delivered in 2030. For the money you could instead literally fund some new kind of doomsday weapon, possible a weather control device or particle canon for funsies.
This has nothing to do with inter-service rivalry, every arm has their own nuclear deterrent.
They want the threat of the silos to be viable enough they tank a large amount of enemy warheads, which means they don't have to be perfect, but they need to be gud enuff.
>China sanctions US defense companies
And burgers won't be able to make new ones...
>quoting a subreddit
Go back
they've been working on this for years dude, Congress just needs to get spooked every once in a while to keep on course
this is psyops against very specifically congress
>2021
Wasn't this whole thing put to bed in the latest nuclear posture review?
You're a moron, the government SAVES money by using SpaceX.
All the shit spacex gets paid by the government to launch is ALL launches that would need to launched by SOMEONE, and SpaceX is the cheapest launch provider by a huge margin. So the tax payers save massive amounts of money by purchasing SpaceX Falcon 9 and Heavy launches over paying for a Delta IV, SLS, Atlas V, etc launches which cost significantly more per launch.
Coating SpaceX is some massive drain on the tax payer is laughably moronic that you can ONLY be making this argument in bad faith. I refuse to believe you're ACTUALLY so moronic you didn't know this already.
Then why the frick aren't you railing against Lockheed/Northrup/ULA/etc/etc?
Nope, Elon and SpaceX are literally satan incarnate so you MUST go to bat against them at every opportunity because you just love America so much and want to protect her, it has NOTHING to do with your hate boner for elon.
>Then why the frick aren't you railing against Lockheed/Northrup/ULA/etc/etc?
Because that's not the topic of discussion here you fricking moron.
Here let me take you step by step
Poster A says
>there wouldn't be a SpaceX without Musk
Post B then comes in with extra context, adding to the discussion
>There wouldn't be a SpaceX without the massive government subsidies it has received. Musk is a common parasite.
See? Easy to follow. Now comes you with some non-sequitur about costs because someone said something bad about your daddy. Low cost or not, I'm opposed to the production of oligarchs with public money.
>Nope, Elon and SpaceX are literally satan incarnate so you MUST go to bat against them at every opportunity because you just love America so much and want to protect her, it has NOTHING to do with your hate boner for elon.
What a fricking serf-like mentality holy shit.
>Stop criticizing the useless corrupt oligarch who got rich with your money, OKAY!!!!!
It's fine if you want to subsidize strategically important industries. Everyone does it. Why on would you tolerate c**ts like Musk as a byproduct?
Because that's what separates the US from China. The government doesn't just step in and take over private industry on a whim.
CAN it happen in the US? Yes, but it is VERY rare.
So let me see if I get this correct, SpaceX is a government contractor for space launches and as such gets subsidies like any other government contractor, it also provides the services and products it is contracted for. And this is a bad thing because the guy who owns the company is a twat. Not because SpaceX doesn't meet its contractual obligations or fail to provide specified quality of goods or overcharges. Because Elon Musk is a twat.
And that alone is apparently enough reason to make it a government-run corporation.
So you assert that Musk is a parasite for saving the government billions because he takes government money for launches? How stupid are you, guess we should just stop all space launches. The ULA had a monopoly on government launches for decades, they were charging 5x as much as spacex per launch and used Russian built rocket engines.
Maybe you should examine your logic and quit contradicting yourself sweetie.
Do you understand how unhinged you seem? Your kneejerk response for anything relating to SpaceX or Elon is not normal, it shows an underlying mental health issue, such as mania. Seek fricking help and start looking at things through an objective lens.
You're halfway to the red pill, but you're stuck in musk derangement mode
A large portion of industry in general leverages the sweet gov't teat
Do any of you old gays remember when these were the ultimate human destruction tool which could be sent from anywhere and hit anywhere on earth and what caused the cold war?
It lends credence to nukes are fake and gay
Yes. The nuclear weapons psyop was programmed from an early age through movies and media. We need a psychological warfare thread.
I would really appreciate that.
I grew up in the 80's being programmed about WW2, atomic bombs, the cold war, the moon landing, and the arms race where the push of a button from [Stalin or Regan or even Trump] would launch a missile and kill anyone anywhere.
After 40 years I've come to the conclusion they were all lies to keep citizens in fear and lapping up daddy government.
Parts of it, yes, other parts, no.
The "radiation will last millions of years and kill everybody" meme was a lie. Fallout would be mostly gone after 2 weeks, and most of it would have fallen within a few hundred miles downwind of the ICBM silos.
The "Nuclear Winter" meme was a lie. It was propagated in part by useful idiots like Carl Sagan, who knew it was based on bad math but repeated the lie anyways because he thought it was a good thing to convince Americans to unilaterally disarm. The Federation of the Atomic Scientists was also guilty of this.
The "everybody will die in an explosion" meme was a lie. MAD was never anybody's official policy, and was something created mostly by talking heads on television who didn't know any better. While a number of cities were targeted on both sides (because they contained military targets), the majority of cities weren't.
"Duck and Cover", while much-derided, was very accurate for the time in which it was produced (the early Cold War). If war had happened and its advice had been followed, thousands--possibly hundreds of thousands--of lives could have been saved.
On the other hand... outside of the early Cold War, not nearly enough emphasis (at least in the US) was placed on Civil Defense, on stockpiling supplies, on making plans to rebuild after a war. This was in large part because of all of the above memes, which were created and/or encouraged by the USSR in an attempt to demoralize the American public (and it worked pretty well). This was a problem, because proper Civil Defense stuff costs a fair bit of money and resources, and if there *had* been a war, millions of people would have died *after* the war was over: not from radiation or nuclear winter, but from famine and disease, which could have been prevented by sufficient stockpiling and planning. This deficiency has never been corrected, because too many politicians still believe the old memes.
Thanks op if this is true than it’s confirmed Russia has no functional nukes which is the opposite of what you were trying to convince me.
Wait, you are telling me you have found some ancient archeotech weapons that nobody currently living understands and we can't build anymore?
Yes, I am intrested. Tell me more.
>The government gave him FREE investments just to have the honor of being his customer?
Yes? What the frick do you think the entirety of DARPA, AFRL, etc are for? To give private industry seed money to develop technologies that the government will then PURCHASE in a product a decade or more later.
Only reason Space X is cheaper than legacy space launch providers is because politicians couldn't micromanage procurement like they did with older ICBM based launch vehicles. Back in 50's and 60's there was all the money for contract carpeting every single state with something to secure political support for missiles and launch vehicles. Space X can basically everything in house, in most expensive state to do business in, as they very few subcontractors. Another thing is that SpaceX operate in very few locations. They have factory, engineering offices and their own mission control in California. Engine test site and Starship launch operations in Texas. Launch operations in Kennedy space center in Florida and Vandenberg AFB in California. Basically they don't have as complicated logistics and supply chain as legacy launch providers.
the whole reusability shtick is a big thing too.
They're still basically the only ones doing orbital flights with reusable boosters.
why are you such a corporate wiener sucker?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
>Post them.
>Post the internal design docs of several notable products/cooperate directives that say
Since you are clearly a corporate shill, I will gladly tell you to eat a sack of dicks.
However for any anon scrolling through here I will elaborate.
First and foremost you once again go on about the free market which America is not. It it written in the constitution "(Congress shall have the power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
Add on to that the hundreds and even thousands of laws, regulations, and taxes and you have a quite limited "free market".
But on to the big thing here good old planned obsolescence that you are so convinced doesn't exist. Well strap in buddy boy because will start with a bang.
The largest, most obvious case. is when Apple used software to slow down users phones. This was such an egregious example that they got the EU of all places to make new laws and then took them to court over it. This is going to be a common theme in our modern examples of Planned Obsolescence is "software updates" and "Digital Rights Management (DRM)" because that's just the world we live in right now.
Alright so that one was whatever a one off from apple no biggie, on to example 2 John Deere, who had tractors that would quite literally not work just because they said so, the software said so that is. Tractors that would normally work fine or be working fine would suddenly just stop working because the software would say it had an issue, the owners would not be able to fix these issues them selves meaning they would have to go to the dealership to have their tractor repaired. Now you can say this isn't "planned obsolescence" but it is, because what is stopping them from just flipping a switch that disables all the tractors, they take them to have them "fixed" and the dealerships either go "we will not fix it" or "we will fix it for the price of a brand new tractor".
To Be Cont.
Part 2: Electric Boogaloo
So those are some of the largest examples lets take a lookie loo at some other cases that have been proved in court. Samsung has been fined by countries around the world for various products but the largest ones are again, software updates causing issues that never existed prior, now remember what I said earlier about somethings being a bug and others being intentional. Considering they didn't change shit until they got fined by a court it's safe to say this was at worst intentional and at best they knew about it and didn't give a shit.
Their TV's are also known to have magically gotten dead pixels after a software update that weren't their before, this one hasn't been proven in a court room yet to my knowledge so I won't claim it as such but perhaps it's yet another example of Samsung being shit.
I want to expand on a topic I brought up in passing and that's the video game and digital entertainment world since it seems like when it comes to being scum through software they are on the cutting edge. Vidya gaymes have had some of the most horrific levels of DRM and "planned obsolescence" that you can find. Look at how pretty much every game these days requires an online connection to even run that alone qualifies it for me but some are even more abhorrent. There was a point in time when EA would only let you install a game you purchased so many times, if you went over that limit you could no longer (legally) install the game. This extends into movies, music, and other forms of software but to a lesser degree.
These are more modern examples from the last 20 or so years so maybe I will dial the clock back a bit to see what we find. One that has been going on for around a century is good old fashion companies. There has been examples of clothing companies, shoe companies and so on making their products intentionally weaker so that people will have to buy more of them. This is something that goes on even today.
More to come soon.
Continuing where we left off, I didn't even scratch into "perceived obsolescence" which is what most fashion companies really like doing but they sure as shit make the clothes weaker to get those few who don't care.
An example I almost forgot to bring up was Hewlett Packard with their all in one printer, scanner, fax machine that will not function in any way shape or form without an ink cartridge, even if what you want to do with them doesn't require a ink cartridge. Something that once again got them taken to court, to compound this issue HP ink cartridges themselves contain a sort of DRM that means you need to have one of THEIR ink cartridge and if you have one that fits, functions, and would normally work just fine it will not work because they say so. You can try to claim that this is just a business being scummy, but at the end of the day these are a form of planned obsolescence since once they want to you can have what amounts to a massive paperweight due to a software update, lack of being able to get ink, or just because the company doesn't like you on a machine that otherwise would work fine.
I really don't feel like going on further, once again if you want examples they aren't hard to find. Just don't be a blind corporate shill.
>everything I don't like is "planned obsolescence"
this is your brain on PrepHole
I like how over all terms of dubious anti-consumer behavior the one this anon autismally merged everything to has "planned" word in it, because it's much easier for simpletons to feel that it's a a conspiracee on a conspiracee
>nooooo it's not planned obsolescence it's just companies making products no longer function on purpose
>Hyman G. Rickove
>free market which America is not. It it written in the constitution
nta but you're pulling some dumb ass semantics. free market isn't a binary descriptor, it's primarily a sliding scale of how prices are determined. you may as well claim that America is not capitalist because it has /some/ social programs.
No not really, I would argue that prior to the mid-late 1800's the US was definitely a free-er market but since the civil war and industrial revolution the US has been no better than any other western nation and in some areas we are absolutely worse. That's not completely a Federal Issue either a lot of it comes down to the states with every single buissness idea you can think of being regulated and requiring licenses and permits.
Legally speaking there very little you can do these days without government approval, I would hardly call that a "free market". Now are we better off than some shithole like North Korea yes, but that doesn't make it a free market.
Its weird how federal centralization is often critiziced (understandably so imo) but local tyrants and local laws can sometimes be the absolute worst.
This thread had potential except it got derailed by 'planned obsolescence' and Musk
Nobody is actually interested in talking about the state of nukes because no one actually knows shit. The most recent information about the state of the US Nuclear Arsenal that is both thorough and accurate is from over a decade ago. Given the state of stuff it's safe to say not much has changed since then and they have continued to deteriorate further. But accurate up to date information on any of this shit is pretty much impossible to get unless some rando who worked in the silos or subs jumps in and explains shit (good luck lmao)
the thread got derailed by a homosexual OP who used a three year old article as bait for a slide thread
>WE BE NEEDING TRERTY BILYON FO DEM EYE SEE BEE EM PROGRAMS
Maybe that's why they subsidized him from the get-go: to break free of the curse of publicly traded contractors.
>There wouldn't be a SpaceX without the massive government subsidies it has received
contracts, the word you're looking for is contracts not subsidies.
>He took someone else's money to hire people smarter than him to do all the work.
You just described every single defense contractor, aerospace company, engineering firm and tech company on earth.
Except none of them are pothead homosexuals committing treason against the United States.
Who gives a shit?
You're moving the goalposts constantly
Originally you said Space X is entirely reliant on government subsidies to survive (not true) then you swerved to Musk hiring engineers (which is bad apparently?) and when I pointed out this is how every company works now you pivot to impotently going "um well he smokes weed!"
Pathetic
Okay, Minuteman IV here we come.
That's really bending the definition of "subsidy". NASA desperately needed a new generation of launchers, and offered contracts to develop them, with the catch that money would only be paid *after* certain milestones had been completed. So, SpaceX had to spend a lot of money in order to hit each milestone and get paid. The ultimate payday from NASA was launch purchases for ISS flights and for space probes.
And, please note that SpaceX came in with a low bid for the contracts, and got a lot less money than their competition did. And the results speak for themselves.
there also wouldn't be the internet if it wasn't for government subsidies once upon a time. Saying something is bad because the government gives money to it is literal fluidbrain mentality.
It wasn't "for free". It was in exchange for cheaper flights to the ISS. That was the whole point of the NASA-led government-funded program that paid for *some* (not all) of the development of the Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule. Let's face it: the government has saved billions of dollars on launch costs so far thanks to Falcon 9/Heavy.
> our nukes don't work
> russian nukes don't work
WW3 time? Pretty please?
i dont think either nuke stockpile is working well, but one thing anal empire has which Russia does not have, is the Shaniqua problem. This leads me to expect the Russian arsenal to function relatively better
unfortunately Russia has a pidor problem so
he's confusing crewed capacity for launch capacity, America had zero crew vehicles after the death of the shuttle program while America never lost launch capacity (unlike the British)
subsidies? dude, they're contracts. they're money given to do work. Boeing got the same contract as SpaceX once, I think almost ten years ago now, for multiple launches. SpaceX fulfilled their contract in full before Boeing had their first launch - two years later Boeing still have not had a single successful launch for that contract
>waste a shitton of delta-v
you're just a shitposter moving the goalposts, you certainly aren't running a successful rocket company delivering shit to orbit
shut the frick up
>400
Upgrades implemented will last through 2029. If there's a deterrence gap it is the SSBNs, producing them at above decommissioning rate & manning them. Then there's the probable exotic strategic weaponry which now overmatches nukes, but which can't be disclosed because otherwise 5th column infested Congress comped by Commies or You Know Whos would use it as an excuse to yank funding. Wouldn't worry about OP. If Moscow & Beijing want to exit history the fast and permanet way instead of Total Demographic Suicide, it will be Uncle Sam's extreme prejudice pleasure, window dressing buffoon civvies like Lloyd Austin notwithstanding.
We're already trying to expand the submarine manufacturing base to accommodate the future Australian Virginia-class subs too. Hopefully, they can properly fill both Virginia-class orders and Columbia-class orders without major delays.
If by "our adversaries" you mean Congress then yeah, it's a psyop.
>We are so weak and submissive and breedable! Look, we lost a wargame we were supposed to lose/made a big deal about decommissioning an obsolete aircraft. Please give me more money mr congressman or [insert current enemy] is gonna make me get boy-pregnant :3
>Musk personally is a parasite that contributes nothing. He took someone else's money to hire people smarter than him to do all the work
I never understood this argument. Why doesn't anyone else do the same? What did these smarter people do before they were hired by Musk? Why didn't they unite together and start a company? There are 735 billionaires in US, why aren't there 735 independent companies as impactful as SpaceX? Because Musk stole all the talent? Why do smarter people go work for him if he's so bad? It doesn't make sense.
>out of hand dismissal of any expert opinion
You're too far gone to be reasoned with anon, sorry.
Oh, not "any" expert. There are plenty out there that at least try to do their jobs honestly. But I don't trust it when the Administration sends Fish & Game after a company to slow them down for months when just coincidentally said Administration is trying to destroy every *other* company the guy owns in retaliation for him refusing to censor speech the Administration doesn't like. Bit of a coincidence, that.
That's irrelevant, anon. Ignoring any expert opinion because you dislike leftists or whatever is incredibly stupid. I'm not going to bother educating you, or the guy I was responding to (as you're first post by this ID) since you're both clearly attacking a strawman at this point.
spacex receives government subsidy unlike ula and the entire MIC!!!!!! spacex is destroying the environment by dumping tons of deadly carbon, oxygen and nitrogen into the atmosphere!!! trust the experts!!! i am a moronic reddit Black person!! help me reddit ahhh
B-52 getting LRSO
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/usaf-solicitation-outlines-planned-lrso-b-52-integration
reusable icbms?