Phil,
<And it just may be that the aforesaid 'tude' is why no one at the USMC will listen?
"OK, all you ignorant god-for-saken fools. I, the 'ONE&ONLY KEEPER
OF THE TRUTH' have arrived & will now enlighten you! Rejoice, for
now you won't have to act like brain-damaged retarded morons anymore. On
top of that I have years & years of paper studies to back up the
ultimate wisdom of my assertions!"<
Thanks for that. I'll use it next time :-)
Actually I mostly based my desings on the USMC and some US Army manuals.
Because I was aware of the GFC in 2007 and the US DoD was not, I based my design in the first place on the perception that it needs to be affordable (after correspondence with a USAF colonel who wrote a book on the subject).
There is virtually no advanced technology in my design. Most of the 'advanced' stuff is in the doctrine, or 'soft ware' if you wish.
To criticise me as being arrogant, you first need to understand how the particular program that I started off performing analysis on came about and developed. You don't know this, and I would say that those who were in charge in 1996 didn't know either. Certainly the GDLS project staff didn't know. Even my USMC expert knowledge colonel (a marine tanker) had to pull the info out of the deeper recesses of his memory.
I have done the 'shovelling', so I can be arrogant to say I have done the work.
As for paper studies, where do you think DoD projects come from? Most at one stage all 'looked good on paper'.
The USMC has been running Analysis of Alternatives studies for four years now, all 'paper studies'.
You think the US Army operational wing colonels have an engineering workshop somewhere at Ft Benning they all run down to to weld up a prototype when they see fit?
Cheers
Greg