I wouldn't be surprised that a country in a literal fight to the death against what should be the third super power is a slightly better breeding ground for innovation and hard work than Raytheon/LockheedMartin deciding what incremental improvement they can drip feed the pentagon to min/max their effort to profit ratio.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, there is obviously more "motivation" for it, but developing something under stress and with reduced resources is often not better.

But Ukraine has shown more than once, that they're up to the task.

So maybe, yes - but I'm just talking out of my ass and have no real insight into weapon developments (of course)

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I think it's crazy that the need is able to produce better results than the trillions the US spends.

I'm not surprised, a bit amused really. America is just a punchline these days.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Hard to say as there are many capabilities to compromise with when designing sonething complex. They are claiming range and speed. However what about acturacy - just to randomly name a factor that wasn't mentioned at all in the article and so I don't know.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 2 points 1 week ago

@Clent @Sunshine

ATACMS is old technology from, when? 1970's?

Would be surprising if 2020's technology was not better than half a century old technology. especially if it's designed by people who either were there to design Soviet Union's missiles or were trained by people who were. Because Ukraine is where most of Soviet rocket technology was always developed. And the Soviet rocket technology sure had many clever solutions to it!