• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cancelled/mothballed government defense projects: 10 billion.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
z1ggy said:
Also, unrelated... But it bugs the shit out of me that we will deliver a boat in the late 2020's that has technology on board from the 1980's. We pushed so hard here to get newer technology on board for certain components (mainly hardware) and the Navy said no. Is some of the stuff going to be "newer" like some of the sonar algorithms? Yep for sure. But in my mind it gets negated by the fact that in a refit on a boat in the year 2050 will probably have to special order parts that went obsolete 15-20 years prior.
Click to expand...

So am I correct in the feeling that much of our military equipment has ancient electronics considering the rapid advances in civilian technology in the last few decades or are the computers and electronics just what they need for military operations?
 
norseamd said:
So am I correct in the feeling that much of our military equipment has ancient electronics considering the rapid advances in civilian technology in the last few decades or are the computers and electronics just what they need for military operations?
Click to expand...

At least on the stuff I have worked on. I can't speak for all of the military, only for certain parts of Naval application.

We have worked on DARPA projects which aren't funded by the Navy, which is the only place I've worked on things that used newer technology. Sadly, I can't really talk about it here.
 
We blow all this cash on obsolete hardware while China gets this idea to just double down behind a computer for cyber warfare and launch cyber attacks on old systems, probing for weaknesses in the grid. Kind of funny when you think about it.
 
Sonikku said:
We blow all this cash on obsolete hardware while China gets this idea to just double down behind a computer for cyber warfare and launch cyber attacks on old systems, probing for weaknesses in the grid. Kind of funny when you think about it.
Click to expand...

OK, so I don't really have time to debate back in forth on this thread, but I'd like to try to drop a little experience into the discussion. Sorry I can't provide my bone fides for you all, but I've spent three decades working on most of the systems you fine people are talking about (except the subs, haven't worked subsurface stuff)...

Three things to consider in your quick analysis:
- Capital/Schedule cost to integrate/regression test; why update when the new stuff doesn't bring any additional capability? It's faster, sure. Less power, fine. But the existing equipment meets the need and updating brings risk because you have to verify you haven't broken anything that used to work with the old tech, so why invest? Applicable to most any mil-spec electronics...

- Sometimes, when a program gets cancelled, it's because the materials science isn't up to the task. Yet. Or it just doesn't work. Or is cost/benefit feasible. But sometimes, they discover something really cool and go black.

- Last point, but the one I feel most strongly about: why are you trusting an opinion from a J-school grad? How many events have you had personal involvement in, just to watch the reporting be wrong, or worse, purposefully spinned to match a narrative? What makes you think this is any different? Why?

Even the Think Tanks are full of Talking Heads who are just speculating and haven't worked on any of this stuff in the last decade or two. Would you really trust some dude offering his opinion on Win10 and Haswell who hasn't done any PC work since there was a win.ini and win.sys file to tweak?

Expanding somewhat, I know there's not a lot of trust in this world left, but...

There are a lot of people who really do care about making things work they way they should. People who care about the folks this equipment is serving, is protecting. Not everyone on these programs are MBA's worried about stock options. And if this stuff works better (or worse) than the papers are telling you, they WILL NOT CORRECT this information, as it will reveal what the capabilities and limitation might be.

/rant
 
garndawg said:
OK, so I don't really have time to debate back in forth on this thread, but I'd like to try to drop a little experience into the discussion. Sorry I can't provide my bone fides for you all, but I've spent three decades working on most of the systems you fine people are talking about (except the subs, haven't worked subsurface stuff)...

Three things to consider in your quick analysis:
- Capital/Schedule cost to integrate/regression test; why update when the new stuff doesn't bring any additional capability? It's faster, sure. Less power, fine. But the existing equipment meets the need and updating brings risk because you have to verify you haven't broken anything that used to work with the old tech, so why invest? Applicable to most any mil-spec electronics...

- Sometimes, when a program gets cancelled, it's because the materials science isn't up to the task. Yet. Or it just doesn't work. Or is cost/benefit feasible. But sometimes, they discover something really cool and go black.

- Last point, but the one I feel most strongly about: why are you trusting an opinion from a J-school grad? How many events have you had personal involvement in, just to watch the reporting be wrong, or worse, purposefully spinned to match a narrative? What makes you think this is any different? Why?

Even the Think Tanks are full of Talking Heads who are just speculating and haven't worked on any of this stuff in the last decade or two. Would you really trust some dude offering his opinion on Win10 and Haswell who hasn't done any PC work since there was a win.ini and win.sys file to tweak?

Expanding somewhat, I know there's not a lot of trust in this world left, but...

There are a lot of people who really do care about making things work they way they should. People who care about the folks this equipment is serving, is protecting. Not everyone on these programs are MBA's worried about stock options. And if this stuff works better (or worse) than the papers are telling you, they WILL NOT CORRECT this information, as it will reveal what the capabilities and limitation might be.

/rant
Click to expand...

Good points and I just wanted to address the first point you made about meeting requirements.

My answer is simple. Obsolescence. Some of these programs have a cradle to grave of over half a century. Since the move away from custom parts to COTS is an integral part of financial savings, do you really think the same COTS piece of hardware will be available 50 years from the time it was designed? Back 20-30 years ago, a lot of hardware was custom made for it's application, so this wasn't an issue.

Even if it was, you will pay a premium... a BIG premium. Then, all the money you saved in the beginning of the program, is now eaten up plus an added extra chunk. So, to avoid this we have to refit the systems with newer stuff. Sometimes it's easy, and other times it's not.

It makes sense in the moment in time the decision is made to use the "bare min" to meet the requirements, but by using COTS to save money now, I really think the military exposes themselves to huge risk down the road if those parts no longer are in major fabrication.
 
garndawg said:
OK, so I don't really have time to debate back in forth on this thread, but I'd like to try to drop a little experience into the discussion. Sorry I can't provide my bone fides for you all, but I've spent three decades working on most of the systems you fine people are talking about (except the subs, haven't worked subsurface stuff)...

Three things to consider in your quick analysis:
- Capital/Schedule cost to integrate/regression test; why update when the new stuff doesn't bring any additional capability? It's faster, sure. Less power, fine. But the existing equipment meets the need and updating brings risk because you have to verify you haven't broken anything that used to work with the old tech, so why invest? Applicable to most any mil-spec electronics...

- Sometimes, when a program gets cancelled, it's because the materials science isn't up to the task. Yet. Or it just doesn't work. Or is cost/benefit feasible. But sometimes, they discover something really cool and go black.

- Last point, but the one I feel most strongly about: why are you trusting an opinion from a J-school grad? How many events have you had personal involvement in, just to watch the reporting be wrong, or worse, purposefully spinned to match a narrative? What makes you think this is any different? Why?

Even the Think Tanks are full of Talking Heads who are just speculating and haven't worked on any of this stuff in the last decade or two. Would you really trust some dude offering his opinion on Win10 and Haswell who hasn't done any PC work since there was a win.ini and win.sys file to tweak?

Expanding somewhat, I know there's not a lot of trust in this world left, but...

There are a lot of people who really do care about making things work they way they should. People who care about the folks this equipment is serving, is protecting. Not everyone on these programs are MBA's worried about stock options. And if this stuff works better (or worse) than the papers are telling you, they WILL NOT CORRECT this information, as it will reveal what the capabilities and limitation might be.

/rant
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Something else about SSBNs - they can fire non-nuclear missiles as well, and having a platform that can fire off a gaggle of Tomahawks when no one knows they are near is a factor that no belligerent nation can ignore.

norseamd said:
So what do you guys think about the brand new Paladins?

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/...that-could-the-future-of-the-armored-brigade/
Click to expand...
Smart program. If memory serves the only thing still marginal in the A6 turret was the hydraulics and the inability to reload under armor. If we can't have the latter - and in today's world it's hardly a priority - then a new chassis using standardized parts to provide equivalent tactical mobility is a smart investment.
 
werepossum said:
Excellent points. Something else about SSBNs - they can fire non-nuclear missiles as well, and having a platform that can fire off a gaggle of Tomahawks when no one knows they are near is a factor that no belligerent nation can ignore.
Click to expand...

Cruise missiles are of great use in less intensive fighting or at least in wars where you are avoiding full scale nuclear conflict. Question is can SSBNs fire those without revealing themselves? Are there any cruise missiles launched as torpedos that swim out some certain distance and then launch normally from there to conceal the location of the SSBNs from whoever is watching?
 
norseamd said:
Cruise missiles are of great use in less intensive fighting or at least in wars where you are avoiding full scale nuclear conflict. Question is can SSBNs fire those without revealing themselves? Are there any cruise missiles launched as torpedos that swim out some certain distance and then launch normally from there to conceal the location of the SSBNs from whoever is watching?
Click to expand...
Depends. If it's launching against Syria, yes. If it's launching against Russia, better get your affairs in order.

To my knowledge there are no fielded cruise missiles with that capability, though there have been some ship-killers tested with that ability. Cruise missiles can be launched while submerged though, if needed.
 
norseamd said:
Cruise missiles are of great use in less intensive fighting or at least in wars where you are avoiding full scale nuclear conflict. Question is can SSBNs fire those without revealing themselves? Are there any cruise missiles launched as torpedos that swim out some certain distance and then launch normally from there to conceal the location of the SSBNs from whoever is watching?
Click to expand...

What?

Please tell me how fire would work underwater?
 
rudeguy said:
Please tell me how fire would work underwater?
Click to expand...

What difference would it make? The missile would still have to make it to the surface even if it was launching from the vertical tubes so I doubt that would be a problem. Now I do not have that much technical knowledge of how launching missiles from submarines actually work.

As for the delayed off-submarine launching maybe you could launch some drone that was basically nothing more than a self-contained missile tube. The autonomous missile drone would swim to the specified location, start orienting to the required posture to fire, and then fire the missile towards the surface at the prescribed time.
 
norseamd said:
What difference would it make? The missile would still have to make it to the surface even if it was launching from the vertical tubes so I doubt that would be a problem. Now I do not have that much technical knowledge of how launching missiles from submarines actually work.

As for the delayed off-submarine launching maybe you could launch some drone that was basically nothing more than a self-contained missile tube. The autonomous missile drone would swim to the specified location, start orienting to the required posture to fire, and then fire the missile towards the surface at the prescribed time.
Click to expand...

It takes 2 seconds to look up.

The missile is launched in a gas "bubble" that shields it from water until it is above the surface.
 
oEmE20z.jpg


Darryl Greenamyer
He built the Starfighter by collecting and putting together a myriad of parts over a 13 year period. The cockpit side panels and some control column bearings of the Red Baron came from the very first production F-104A, which crashed in Palmdale, California 22 years earlier. The tail of the Red Baron, minus stabilizers, came from a junkyard in Ontario, California. The stabilizers and some nose wheel parts were from scrap piles in Tucson and Homestead, Florida. The idler arm for the elevator controls, the ejection seat rails and some electrical relays came from an F-104 that crashed and burned at Edwards Air Force Base on the edge of the Mojave Desert. Greenamyer got his throttle quadrant from a Tennessee flying buff he met at the Reno National Air Races. The trunnion mounts for the nose gear, some of the cooling-system valves and a few relays on the Red Baron came from a 25-ton pile of junk that Greenamyer bought at Eglin Air Force Base. In a swap with NASA, he obtained the nose of a Lockheed NF-104A, with its reaction controls. The all-important J79-GE-10 engine was obtained from the US Navy.

On October 24, 1977, Greenamyer, flying a modified F-104 Starfighter "Red Baron" (N104RB), set a FAI Class C-1 Group III 3 km speed record of 1,590.45 kilometres per hour (988.26 mph), which still stands.[6] An earlier attempt on October 2, 1976 yielded a higher time (1,630 km/h), but one timing camera didn't work on one run, meaning the record couldn't be certified.
Click to expand...

Never ceases to amaze me what a determined person can put together from other people's junk...

Uno
 
rudeguy said:
The missile is launched in a gas "bubble" that shields it from water until it is above the surface.
Click to expand...

So my original thought was the torpedo being like a cartridge for the missile which would swim to the entered location and then fire the missile from out of the torpdeo cartridge. Could you do that with a tube like autonomous launcher?
 
norseamd said:
So my original thought was the torpedo being like a cartridge for the missile which would swim to the entered location and then fire the missile from out of the torpdeo cartridge. Could you do that with a tube like autonomous launcher?
Click to expand...

derp
 
The missiles are launched from underwater in a vertical missile tube inside the submarine. After they have been launched they ascend to the surface at a very high speed inside a nitrogen gas bubble that prevents them from getting wet. Only after they had surfaced, internal gyros let the missile know when it starts to fall back towards the water and this triggers the rockets to fire, sending the missile towards its intended target.
Click to expand...


http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/15305...nderwater-but-never-get-wet-wait-what-ab572-0
 
The missiles are launched from underwater in a vertical missile tube inside the submarine. After they have been launched they ascend to the surface at a very high speed inside a nitrogen gas bubble that prevents them from getting wet. Only after they had surfaced, internal gyros let the missile know when it starts to fall back towards the water and this triggers the rockets to fire, sending the missile towards its intended target.
Click to expand...

I bet the person who first suggested that missiles could be launched from underwater got laughed out of the room. I bet that same person was like "Holy crap, it actually worked!" when it worked.
 
IronWing said:
I bet the person who first suggested that missiles could be launched from underwater got laughed out of the room. I bet that same person was like "Holy crap, it actually worked!" when it worked.
Click to expand...

The problem is where is the enemy radar going to pick up the missile? So if the missile just continues to go straight up after reaching the surface than the enemy basically knows where your SSBN worth billions of dollars is sitting waiting to get hit. Then again there are thousands of types of radar so some of them might be able to pick up on the missile breaching the surface which would make launching missiles vertically from submarines underwater transparent and very dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top