Homeland Missile Defense System Test Fails; Pentagon Calls It A "Success"

[vienna]

A January test of a US $40 Billion homeland missile defense system failed in execution, yet the Pentagon and the Defense contractor are touting it as a success:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-missile-defense/#nt=notification

This system has been plagued with problems since its initiation in 2004; it seems to be yet another example of Pentagon waste of tax dollars...



<O>

[Jimbuna]

Perhaps advice should be sought from NK, they have a 100% success rate in everything they attempt, apparently :shucks:

[Commander Wallace]

Perhaps advice should be sought from NK, they have a 100% success rate in everything they attempt, apparently :shucks:

They have a 100% success rate of making themselves look bad or incompetent. :yep:

[Catfish]

^ hey, they even landed on the sun!
Clever as they are, they did it by night.

I know i posted this already at least three times, but i can't get over that :rotfl2:


Not completely OT, but what does an F-35 cost?

[Sailor Steve]

Not completely OT, but what does an F-35 cost?
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Oberon]

https://youtu.be/S9eVIk-fqac?t=166

:03:

[vienna]

Not completely OT, but what does an F-35 cost?

Did you want it retail or wholesale?....



<O>

[Platapus]

It would depend on what was in the test plan. Perhaps the capability they were testing was successful.

Unless we know what was in the test plan, and we won't. It is impossible to tell what was and was not successful.

said the Pentagon scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified.

A most convenient source.. one that can't be evaluated. Is there any expectation that this particular scientist was even involved in the test?

Testing of these types of weapons is far too complicated to be accurately reported in a news paper.

I have been involved in such testing. Even when things blow up, individual test cases can still be successful.

[Catfish]

Did you want it retail or wholesale?....>

What about leasing a sixpack :hmmm:

[Oberon]

I thought Lockheed was the one who did the paying? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals) :O:

[Gargamel]

It would depend on what was in the test plan. Perhaps the capability they were testing was successful.

Unless we know what was in the test plan, and we won't. It is impossible to tell what was and was not successful.



A most convenient source.. one that can't be evaluated. Is there any expectation that this particular scientist was even involved in the test?

Testing of these types of weapons is far too complicated to be accurately reported in a news paper.

I have been involved in such testing. Even when things blow up, individual test cases can still be successful.

This. There are such things as successful failures. They usually represent stepping stones for hashing out bugs or elements in a system that couldn't be figured out without a failure. It's like having an intermittent problem with your car, but every time you take it to the mechanic, they can't reproduce it. Without the failure, no progress can be made.

Also, there are successful failures, such as the Apollo 13 mission, that while missing their stated goals, circumstances forced mission objectives to radically change.

[em2nought]

Oops, that didn't make since. It's late

[Platapus]

Also, there are successful failures, such as the Apollo 13 mission, that while missing their stated goals, circumstances forced mission objectives to radically change.


And despite Apollo 13's "problem". They were still able to complete a lot of their experiments and we learned a lot from the "failure".

[vienna]

There is no doubt there is much to be learned from failure; however, when there is a constant and consistent series of failures not leading up to any foreseeable success, it is often better to accept the loss and move on to another, perhaps better solution. Maybe I wouldn't be so critical if there wasn't the attachment of billions of dollars to those constant failures...



<O>