The stupidity of Lockheed Martin and the Defense Department

Discussion in 'Security & Defenses' started by 61falcon, Oct 8, 2018.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I still laugh at how many people for some reason seem to believe that Halliburton is an "oil company". That has literally never been true. Their actual business was in making pipelines, refineries, and other infrastructure for the oil industry. They were themselves never actually involved in oil.

    And as one of the largest construction companies in the world, they also built up a huge infrastructure to support those construction projects in remote and isolated locations. Which meant when the military was looking at somebody to do the same things for their new bases, they were the only company that could provide those services. Housing, food, laundry, sanitation, water, power plants and wiring, even transportation. They literally already had everything needed, and the experience to set them up and get them operating in short order. Probably the only other company that at one time could have done similar was Morrison-Knudsen (which used to do similar projects in the US, like the Hoover Dam, installations at Midway and Wake Islands before WWII, and the Alaska Pipeline).

    But by MK had largely left that industry by the 1980's, and shut down in 2000.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  2. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  3. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry kid, I worked on the Patriot missile with Raytheon in Massachusetts. The AROW software made Patriot a missile that was precision against incoming rather than an area weapon that just "came close". Been there, done that.

    You obviously have no idea what the original purpose of PATRIOT was. It was designed to protect maneuver forces against incoming of all types. Do you have any idea about what the true scope of AIR DEFENSE was back then? Ever heard of Chaparral? Vulcan? Stinger? There were lots of things to knock down aircraft. Patriot was designed to protect against SCUDS. Ever heard of the 11th Air Defense Battalion? They are known as the "SCUD BUSTERS" after their experience in Desert Storm.

    By the way, Mr Expert, SCUDS are not missiles. They are rockets. Rockets are aimed and fired ... like a bottle rocket or a 2.75" FFAR (Folding Fin Aerial Rocket). They go where they are aimed. Like a bullet. They are not "terminally guided" like a missile is. SCUD is a rocket... not a missile at all. Missiles are like HELLFIRE... which are guided to the target... like the SAL HELLFIRE which is guided by a laser. JAVELIN is guided to the target by imaging and other active sensors. Those are missiles. Rockets are just point and shoot. Like a bullet.

    Your historical treatise is really interesting. But out of date.
     
  4. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The original PATRIOT exploded in the vicinity of the incoming threat, knocking it down, but not destroying it. That's why the greatest single incident of US casualties in Desert Storm was a SCUD that had been knocked down but not destroyed. It fell in a hangar complex that housed US medical personnel, killing 93 of hem. The original Patriot was also unacceptable to Israel because the SCUDS would fall into populated areas. So they gave us their ARROW missile system guidance which allowed the Patriot to intercept a SCUD and destroy it.

    SCUD is NOT a "ballistic missile". It is a rocket. Missiles are guided in flight, terminally guided to the target. Rockets are not. You aim and fire rockets... like a bullet. It goes where it is pointed at trigger pull... nothing more. That's why rockets are very poor against moving targets. Rockets have never been very effective against moving targets like tanks or aircraft. That's why we built (guided) missiles like TOW, Dragon, Redeye, Stinger, Javelin, etc.

    Your comments about museums and the things in them are very interesting though.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FYI, I am a 14T. Operating and maintaining PATRIOT launchers and equipment was my job for over 5 years. And I wear both the 11th Brigade (Imperial) as well as the 31st on my right shoulder. But the 11th Brigade is not known as "Scud Busters". That is the 31st Brigade.

    And no, PATRIOT was never "designed" to take out other missiles. It was originally designed as the "SAM-D" Program, back in the early 1960's. A mobile local area defensive system, to sit in between HAWK and NIKE. It was purely an anti-aircraft system, the missiles themselves scream this fact. A rather small explosive that was operated by a proximity fuse. This is the same time the Nike Zeus was being developed, which could indeed intercept a ballistic missile. But not actually striking it for a kill, it had a W50 400 kt nuclear warhead, that would destroy the inbound missile(s).

    And trust me, I am no "kid". I was already into my 40s when I started working with PATRIOT, and that was a decade and a half ago.

    But it did not "explode in the vicinity", it used a shaped charge combined with a proximity fuse to direct a cone of shrapnel at the target. Where it would puncture fuel tanks, sever control cables and hoses, and cause damage to the flight surfaces. This was not the "flak" of WWII, where it would "explode" and send shrapnel in all directions. It was a very tightly focused burst, not unlike a HEAT warhead. Which was the very problem in the Gulf War. The missile was never intended to engage other missiles. Which if what you are claiming is true, would have been part of the design from Day 1.

    This is something Raytheon warned the Army about, but it was thought any system was better than no system. And obviously you have no idea how a PATRIOT Battery or Battalion is even located. They are generally on the edge of the defended location, on the side facing the potential threat. But with the original and PAC-2 missiles, they were just not enough to get anything close to a "clean kill" of a ballistic missile. So many just continued on their terminal trajectory, but with some landing short as control surfaces and avionics had been damaged during the interception.

    As once a ballistic missile is in it's terminal phase, the control surfaces mean little. It is literally a falling rock at that time, and almost anything short of almost complete destruction means it is going to impact at least close to where it would have before intercept. Like somehow shooting the fins off of a mortar round. It is still going to impact, and still going to detonate. Just not quite in the location it originally was going to.

    Should we go into what a BMOA is, and the actual classification of a "defended asset", and why the system is placed where it is? I can discuss that also if you want. But there I am much more limited, as I have to verify everything I say is already available as public access, and that is a huge pain in the butt.

    And yes, I know of all those other systems, I also am trained in the STINGER, and decades ago had some familiarization with the REDEYE system. I am also trained in THAAD, and basic training in SHORAD.

    But it was amusing to read your trying to talk down at me. I guess you did not get by how I was talking that I am extremely familiar with both PATRIOT, and all levels of Air Defense operations. And the "Software from Arrow" in the PATRIOT? Don't even make me laugh. As I said, PATRIOT predates Arrow by decades, and the PAC-3 was already in deployment while Arrow was still in development. Arrow was not even deployed until 5 years after PAC-3 was in service, almost a decade after the GEM series of missiles had entered service, and as the PAC-3 was entering it's third sequence of upgrades.

    You sure seem hung-up on the Arrow though. But it is nothing even remotely like the PATRIOT. Heck, it is not even mobile. The closest thing the US uses to it is the GBI system.
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,531
    Likes Received:
    6,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not it wasn't. Patriot was originally designed as "Air Defense 70" (as in 1970). It was only pressed into service in Desert Storm against SCUD missiles because there was no other option.
     
  7. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Career E-6's do vex me.
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, it had many names over the decades. The original proposal was actually written way back in 1963. It was almost 20 years from first proposal to the first actual battalions being fielded.

    One was "SAM-D, or "Surface to Air Missile - Development", but it had others. FABMDS (Field Army Ballistic Missile Defense System) and AADS-70 (Army Air-Defense System – 1970) were others.

    Not unlike the F-35 was a combination of many programs, including CALF, ASTOVL, and JSF.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  9. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Airframes have pretty much maxed out. They can already do things the human body can't stand. Next stop? Lighter... cheaper unmanned aircraft. No cockpit requirements at all! Ahhh... but now that CHAMP is fully developed and fielded, we may find the old UH-1, not reliant on circuits to fly, may be the only thing going airborne. And communications will be back to signal flags.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And there is that old lie once again. They are not really "cheaper".

    To give an idea, it takes 5 Predators to come even close to the capabilities of a single F/A-18 Hornet. And that is not even close, because the Hornet can still carry more weapons that the Predator can't. And at $50 million a pop, that is over $250 million just to come close to a single manned aircraft.

    An aircraft by the way that only costs $66 million.

    "Lighter" is also largely meaningless in an aircraft. Go ahead and create some kind of "Super Predator" that can carry 5 times the weapon load, and I bet it's weight then starts to come close to that of the Hornet.

    Of course, most drones are also horribly underpowered, and slow. Designed to have long loiter times and not to get anywhere in a hurry. Need to get airborne and take out inbound fighters before they can target your base? Don't send drones, the bandits will be launching missiles before they even get within range.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  11. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eliminating the cockpit, environmental equipment, safety equipment and most importantly SPACE CLAIM and WEIGHT tremendously decreases the cost of a UxV from a manned aircraft. The cost is so pronounced, in fact, that current tactical thought is turning to massive formations of UxV's called "swarming"... its still cheaper. And there are a LOT of UxV's out there a lot cheaper than Predator/Reaper and its big brother Global Hawk. Many smaller types are available which can be stripped of other missions like recon and sigint and just perform the attack mission. One I witnessed during exercises at the University of West Virginia (along with Ole Miss, the leaders in UxV research) was a small version of the F-22. Fast... nimble... (yes, I have worked in dfense for decades and have been involved with UxV development from time to time.) Missiles against drones is analogous to shooting down mosquitos with a rifle.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why does a Predator cost $50 million, and an F/a-18 cost $66 million? Yet is less than 1/5 as capable?

    No drones come anywhere close to the speed, payload, and flexibility to that of a manned aircraft. Plus the biggest advantage, manned aircraft can not have their entire mission scrubbed because of enemy electromagnetic interference. We know Russia has that capability, as do ourselves.

    I bet that if some major conflict happens and both sides try using drones, it will be hilarious as each side quickly renders them inoperable and they both return to manned aircraft.

    We have had drones since before WWII. And they have never come anywhere even close to delivering as promised unless against an adversary that has almost no technological capability.
     
  13. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok. bear with me here. Its obvious you know nothing about "drones" ... called UxV's by those that use them. First, there are dozens of types of drones on the battlefield today, Predator is only ONE. UxV's were never designed to fight in the air. They simply have a mission to go someplace, look around (recon), gather radio frequency data (SIGINT) or attack a target. Manned aircraft would have a hard time FINDING a small UxV let alone shooting it down. UAV's are often dropped from the wings of an aircrafts at the edge of the battle area so they are practically at the target when they begin to fly. Many cost a few hundre thousand dollars, not millions at all.
    Again, trying to counter a UAV with a manned aircraft is like trying to shoot down a swarm of mosquitos with a rifle. And, yes, air-ground communications have been an issue with our UAV's... most notably when Iran compromised a Predator comms system, took over control and landed it in Iranian territory a few years ago. Since that time, we have been building AUTONOMOUS UxV's that do not require human control. They are preprogrammed independently. Using a combination of Artificial Intelleigence and a complex system that allows them to make independent decisions, air-ground comms are no longer required. I worked on a portion of that architecture that was designed to give the UxV "emotions" of a sort. The idea was for it to monitor accompanying UxV's (remember "swarming") and if the THREAT is considered too intense, give the system the option of changing its course from an on-board list of options. The mission itself could be changed in the same way in extreme circumstances.

    This makes the UxV's invulnerable to enemy MIJI (Meaconing/Interference/Jamming/Intrusion). New CHAMP technology remains a problem, but its a problem for anything that flies.
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,714
    Likes Received:
    2,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    *chuckles*

    Actually, I am aware.

    Those small surveillance ones? Great for recon, pretty much worthless other than targeting for aircraft and artillery since they are unarmed. So just remove them altogether.

    The combat ones? Not much smaller, they are almost the exact same size as a combat aircraft. And once again, they still have only a fraction of the payload of a manned aircraft. So they are no harder to hit than any manned fighter. And their RADAR cross-section is roughly the same as that of a piloted aircraft. Trust me, was part of a survey measuring that at White Sands years ago on several different drones.

    And the military is never going to allow autonomous combat drones, ever. We do not even trust our defensive weapons systems to operate that way, let alone our offensive ones. So any fantasies of swarms of autonomous drones is just that, a fantasy.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.

Share This Page