It’s a difficult task. I’d also like to point out that they do real-world testing because they don’t know if the technology will really work in the real-world: sometimes it needs to be tweaked. This is one of those times. No big deal.
Good point I guess I’ve been reading too much about N. Korea lately.
It might be a big deal politically, though. Congress has been looking at this system as something worth canceling.
“No big deal.”
One of 0bama’s campaign promises was to stop development of “unproven missile defense systems”.
I think we need this capability, but if The Man decides it’s “unproven” he can cut it. Even if it was Jeff Baxter’s idea.
>> No big deal.
Exactly right.
In the late ‘70s I was part of the crew of the submarine that was the test platform for the Tomahawk cruise missile.
We had some spectacular failures. I remember one where we were going to fire a Tomahawk while submerged. It was a big production — lots of military and civilian brass, including SecDef, and the press also, in bleachers, waiting for it to break the surface and fly away.
Ha ha! It never did. Engine failure. You talk about egg on the face (not the crew’s faces as much as the contractors’).
Around then there was a lot of talk about the sub-launched cruise missile concept being a waste of time and money, a bad idea, never work, should be canceled, yadda yadda yadda.
We all know how that one turned out in the end.
R&D is R&D. Failures are part of the process. It’s not like they don’t learn from them.
And frankly... if you REALLY want government stimulus that REALLY WORKS to create lots of GOOD jobs — pump money into defense R&D.
FRegards