You’re overlooking something. Developing smaller number of missile projects doesn’t necessarily speed up the schedule, because the engineers and technicians are working for different companies. If you reduce the number of projects being developed by different companies, you’ll simply end up developing fewer missiles in the same amount of time. And if you force different companies to collaborate, the team becomes too large, the division of responsibilities becomes more complicated, and you still end up developing fewer missiles in the same amount of time. Brooks’s Law applies quite well to defense industry projects.
I’ve noticed that you keep reaching conclusions too quickly by taking snippets of what I’ve said and extrapolating an entire viewpoint from them -- then arguing against positions I never actually took.

The issue isn’t that they’re developing three separate A2A missiles; that’s normal, and I never even said that forcing everyone to work together and simply pouring money at a problem accelerates development, or even that they should do this...

Developing a ramjet is perfectly reasonable as long as there are sufficient resources for it; the issue is that they’re building their entire primary BVRAAM armament for the next decade around ramjets.

We’re not in the 1990s anymore; we’re in the age of network- and LOity-centric aerial warfare. You’re going to be facing at least 120 F-35s by 2035 (not to mention VKS LO fighters and the 4.5th-gens of all three parties), backed by numerous modern special-mission aircraft, and you’re going to be at a disadvantage if you rely primarily on ramjet-powered BVRAAMs...


This will be my final answer on the matter, as I don’t want to get dragged into a very long exchange that spirals out of control and somehow ends with us discussing 18th-century warfare and statecraft...
 
Another batch of Tolun-P SDBs ready for delivery...

HR11jbsasAAiyva
 

Attachments

  • 1789294470315.png
    1789294470315.png
    434.2 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 1789375480924.png
    1789375480924.png
    545.2 KB · Views: 13
  • 1789376681884.png
    1789376681884.png
    944.9 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom