Raytheon asks retirees for help making new Stinger anti-air missiles
popsci.com
popsci.com
I don't understand why they would not secure the production of that missile, or even replace it with something new.
It's not like they don't have enough money to cover all possible sorts of weapons that can exist.
The idea was nobody would. E insane enough in the interconnected global economy to start to "real" war. And thus weapons production focused on anti-terrorism etc.
I get the sense Ukraine us using them as the insurgency rather than the counter-insurgency
Stringers are absolutely useful in LSCO. Soviet doctrine made heavy use of MANPADS (man portable air defense systems, of which Stinger counts) when they were planning for LSCO. Basically every army besides the US army (and its allies) makes heavy use of them, and the US army is different because they plan for the US Air Force to be able to clear the skies for them. Soviet doctrine embedded air defence at all levels of their army, from MANPADS to Pantsirs, Buks, and S-300s etc. This goes from man carrier to short/middle/long range.
if NATO is so loss averse and doesnt want to risk own soldiers' lives, then NATO/US doctrine should plan for proxy wars - and not blindly assume they will have air superiority everywhere
Should the next proxy war happen in LATAM/Africa/ME - I am not sure US would rush to deploy air assets.
For example - Iran/China - would US create no fly zone over these countries?
How they choose to exercise that is an exercise for you, the reader, whoever would like - not this comment.
If you’re making the point that America and NATO could join the fight sure, but that’s a hypothetical and the reality now is that the skies in Ukraine are contested.
for different factions of rebels backed by Pentagon/CIA/etc/etc
Seems like it went great.
not even talking about millions of killed/displaced refugees that are now in Europe and all over the middle east, and all the humanitarian disaster that was caused by strategic miscalculation and doctrine mismatch
Their claimed goals and incentives are rarely complete, sometimes not even true!
The stinger discussion seems a sub-issue to the longer-term process of hollowing out US industrial production described in the foreign affairs article cited in the HN post
I would assume a company like Raytheon has all their processes documented and can quickly spin up a new manufacturing line for a legacy product.
Do you assume that they had all of their processes documented 20 years ago, and that they have retained all of that documentation, and that the documentation is appropriate for a 2023 workforce and doesn't make assumptions about the audience that would be invalid today?
Because I would bet that that isn’t all true.
I've worked with engineering companies across Europe, and their documentation is always amazing, with full traceability of every component going back to the 80's. Everything from processes to weld inspections.
I'd assume that a company engineering weapons would be the same.
Otherwise, you're in the business of archeology, a field which itself requires extra-archaeological context to make sense of its own findings.
I'd expect the same standard for anything military/involving national security, alone for the fact that should war come, there will be a need to rapidly expand production, to rope in everyone able and willing - and that won't work without complete documentation.
But that's probably where the issue lies. Those plans make certain assumptions based on the technology, tooling, and processes in use at the time. The bill of materials may reference off-the-shelf parts that were readily available back in the 70s and 80s but are now considered obsolete. Some of the raw materials specified may no longer in use due to new environmental regulations, changes in industry standards, limited availability nowadays for any number of reasons, etc. Machining processes may be documented in the context of machines, tools, and procedures common a the time that we simply no longer use. Similar challenges exist for every part of the process, from sourcing materials to quality control.
You can document everything with a great deal of detail at the time--likely the case here, by the nature of manufacturing complex products--but that doesn't mean it will be understood in exactly the same manner forty years later. No engineer can predict how processes and standards will change over that kind of time frame; the best they can do is document everything clearly enough that future engineers can work through what's left behind and adapt it as needed in the future.
Bringing in retirees likely expedites that process. They can almost certainly work through it, but if a few phone calls and meetings with retired staff can speed things along, there's no reason not to. It doesn't mean someone screwed the pooch in the past. In a military context, existing stockpiles are meant to give you sufficient time to restart production.
With a computer backup, you can monitor that the system is functioning and verify the recovery process. You can even confirm it directly, restoring backups to a separate system. You can't do that with a manufacturing line that hasn't manufactured anything in forty years. Either you keep it active, manufacturing items you neither need nor want, or you try to constantly update your plans every few years on the off-chance that you'll want to build more outdated Stingers in the future.
That would absurdly wasteful, and even if you catch some changes in procedure/systems/materials, you'll miss plenty of others unless you actually try to restart production. No matter what you do, there's going to have to be a certain degree of interpretation work that's needed.
I presume there are good reasons why this and exactly this is happening (and probably not only at this manufacturer), if for nothing else than reducing costs... not maintaining something is always cheaper than maintaining it.
In a sense you could consider each person who has knowledge to be an air gapped data bank with a limited lifespan. Theres some very clear issues with that system, but that's arguably the effective intention behind not documenting war related development until well after the useful lifespan of the development.
Europe isn't overflowing with gigantic tech companies nor defense contractors that would have what you're describing going back to the 1980s and 1990s. You can likely count them on one hand, given how few there are to begin with.
There's a very big difference between knowing how something was made decades ago via schematic & component lists, and having to restart very high-quality production from scratch, including the ancient components. Building things related to technology during their actual time + place, is considerably easier than trying to recreate that time + place decades into the future and at scale.
That is completely delusional.
>You can likely count them on one hand, given how few there are to begin with.
Giant (or just large) Technology/Defense companies, a random sample:
Siemens,Bosch,Phillips,Renaut,Airbus,VW,Thales,Thyssen Krupp,Rheinmetall,Saab,Dassault,Zeiss,ASML,NXP,BMW,Mercedes,Liebherr,MBDA,...
As someone who has worked in this field, I almost spewed coffee out my nose. Thanks for the chuckles.
I got a call literally last week Tuesday because one of the usual operators had left his position at one of the top 5 US aerospace and defense contractors (other than Raytheon), and they didn't know how to reset the sequence for the machine my employer had built for them less than 10 years ago.
Sure, any controls engineer worth their Ethernet cable would be able to read the PLC code and reverse-engineer it, but the user manual for that machine is about 8 pages of mostly boilerplate and would take an intern about 15 minutes to generate. It would take 50 times as many pages and 500 times as much effort to generate a proper user manual that would guarantee the next operator can read the manuals and fully understand what needs to happen to make good parts.
Also, if the government isn't paying for it anymore, there's no reason to put overhead money towards keeping those manufacturing lines open anymore.
Complex missile systems? That's nothing compared to my vm running kube, running docker, running nextjs react emulating x86 and running kube again. Layers of more software surrounding software is the next big thing. Also microservices and LLMs.
But sure, go off about JavaScript or whatever.
Good luck finding a SCIF that's as pleasant as a home office.
But yeah, salary is a big issue. Defense work (whether as a civil servant or a contractor) just doesn't pay as well as VC-backed software development.
Although in the current job market, I have to say that the median pay gap seems to be smaller.
For sure, "make hay when the sun is shining". But the days of clearing $200k-$400k to build crud apps or other low value high comp engineering work might not be coming back. Conversely, this is an opportunity for higher value work to evangelize its value prop to high value talent (assuming the comp is commensurate with the work).
Pick your poison: too little money at dealing with nonsense, or too much money on simple shit such that you spend all your time creating more and more layers of nonsense.
So with clearance, you’re still stuck working on a web framework, but it will help display and track classified documents. How exciting.
If you're arguing against defense work in general, please consider the consequences of unilaterally disarming ourselves.
I want world peace. Unfortunately others seem to prefer expansion / exploitation of other nations.
I'd like to respond, but it's not clear if you're up for a serious discussion.
[1]
> As a result, the executive steering group and its supporting working groups spent extensive time on building a humanitarian assistance package for Iraq, but comparatively little time on the functions of a post-regime government outside of the oil ministry.
Surely with the focus on the oil ministry, post invasion operations were fully transparent and not at all suspicious!
[2]
> In October 2004, the audits conducted by IAMB and KPMG revealed the CPA's inadequate accounting system. IAMB failed its oversight process for several months because of procedural disputes and US manipulation. During this time illegal export of petroleum was conducted secretly from Iraq, and a large amount of funds for DFI were disbursed without accountability. According to the audits conducted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), US $8.8 billion of the US$23 billion of Iraqi money disbursed for DFI has not been accounted [for].
> Iraq's oil infrastructure was damaged when the CPA took over. The CPA effected selected repairs. But the IAMB found that the CPA had chosen not to repair the meters on the pipelines. The IAMB told the CPA that they were concerned that the lack of metering made auditing Iraq's oil exports unreliable – making it impossible to detect fraud, deception or smuggling. The minutes of the IAMB meeting make clear that the CPA had assured the IAMB that they were in the process of repairing the meters – in bad faith. The CPA's authority came to an end with the meters unrepaired. Estimates of how much oil revenue was siphoned off during the year of the CPA's administration go as high as $4 billion – comparable to the amount Saddam Hussein is suspected of stealing during the entire duration of the oil-for-food program.
Uhhhhh... Right, thanks for keeping us safe defense industry!
[1] - pg. 64, The US Army in the Iraq War, 2003-2006
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_Fund_for_Iraq
The US is deploying an entire chain of military forces around china. Literally. From Japan all the way through taiwan to the Philippines we are boxing china in with massive amounts of deadly firepower.
Any equivalent action against the US would launch mass hysteria among the public. As much as I don't agree with certain things china does.. they are showing incredible restraint here. The US media is pulling off the most successful propaganda campaign I've ever seen... Literally characterizing this action as something that's self defense and necessary for world peace.
Self defense is a complete joke. it's 100 percent military aggression by the US. All in the name of economic and military power.
Yeah all that brain power is deployed to create technology that is barely used ever. It's just there to scare other people away.
That's the current state of technology right now. On one hand in defense you have people cooking up technology that will never be used.
On the other hand you have the entire IT industry cooking up technology to make simple things 1000000x more complex.
It's like humanity has run out of shit to do and the money is being directed towards useless busy work.
I'm not about to endure that anal exam again, which also demanded time from my friends and neighbors and former employers, just so that the government can divulge it all.
I'd consider doing classified work again but the cloak and dagger aspect of the hiring process has got to go. In this day and age all they need is my name and SSN to find out anything they need to know about me.
Even if this is true, a map is not the terrain, and there’s no substitute for experience.
Yes, they're having problems with getting cleared people. It isn't the top-paying gig it used to be.
Those skills and that value add opportunity is gone.
Backfilling a proven stock item is faster than infilling a new platform. Refer to the training cycles required for tanks provided by the UK. Those tanks have qualified operators ( with matching tactical-operational skills, but there are few personnel to back up their abilities. The Stinger is valuable because of the established user base compared to that.
There are US soldiers and contractors fighting and dying right now: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...