this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1427 readers
120 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (20 children)

10x smaller doesn't mean 10x cheaper when things you're cutting corners on are warhead and rocket engine that is cheapest components per gram that also make the entire thing work. just to begin, 3M price per pop is the price that saudis paid for 650 SLAM-ER AShMs, along with training and limited tech support, and foreign sales are always fleecing customers like this. for domestic customer, price is half million apiece

In addition, huge missiles aren’t needed to take out the smaller corvettes and frigates that make up the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

citation needed

Harpoon AShM warhead is something like 200kg, and for a very good reason. sinking ships is much harder than destroying land vehicles, and they want to sink something with 20kg warhead? that's a bit spicier than heavy ATGMs like Stugna-P. if that thing is enough to one-hit a ship then so is 127mm naval artillery shell (what they're going to war against, jetskis?). for comparison, it took something like 5 drone boat hits (200kg warhead each) to sink sergey kotov, 1400-ish ton patrol boat in black sea fleet. they want to sink similar sized targets with 20kg warhead missiles, i doubt crew would even notice in some cases

that immediately means they have to compete with a naval gun at ranges less than 40km, and they will lose. also such small ship probably isn't that much of a threat at distance

with anything big enough to get notice of airforce there's quicksink, that is JDAM kit modified to dive under ship in question and break its keel. with one-ton warhead it costs something like 120k, and it's already tested and will be ready much faster than whatever they're cooking. they're simply noticed that chinese navy is stocking up anti-ship missiles and want to get on the hype train. or maybe they're copying ukrainians? neptune has 150kg warhead and various drone boats carry even bigger load (200-850kg and maybe more than that)

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

10x smaller doesn’t mean 10x cheaper when things you’re cutting corners on are warhead and rocket engine that is cheapest components per gram that also make the entire thing work.

Wait, what else is there in a missile though? I'm obviously a complete ignorant in this space but in my head a missile is the thing that goes boom (warhead), the thing that goes vroom (engine), electronics, and the packaging. I'm assuming the packaging is also not the main cost here since "smaller doesn't mean cheaper", sooo, what, are the electronics that expensive?

[–] cstross@wandering.shop 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

@V0ldek You missed maintenance and logistics. Military gear is typically amortized over a 30 year period, so a £3M missile might actually cost something like £0.3M to build then a bit under £100K per year to keep in working order (new batteries and motors, regular inspections and refurb, cost of the leak-proof warehouse it's stored in, etc).

[–] dimpase@mathstodon.xyz 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

@cstross @V0ldek New motors? Cruise missiles use turbofans, just like planes, unlike rockets. So they don't get old fast, probably last 30 years just fine.
And, well, just build them in Ukraine, and shoot them the day they are made...

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Setting up the infrastructure for that manufacturing is expensive and complicated, requiring supply chains and skilled workers. Even ignoring the risks of disruption by hostile action that's a lot of infrastructure and industrial capacity to build up in an active war zone, and from the western perspective it's better long-term to have that extra manufacturing capacity locally, to say nothing of being easier to sell to politicians and voters.

[–] dimpase@mathstodon.xyz 5 points 3 months ago

@YourNetworkIsHaunted Ukraine is building its missiles well enough even now, it has expertise, skilled workers, etc. Ever heard of Mriya, Antonov, etc?

Also, ironically, it was a major supplier of the Russian Air Forces, and it maintained Russian rockets until recently.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)