On 6/21/2015 11:30 PM, Greg Chalik
wrote:
Kurt,
By this stage the
project in question was cancelled by the Congress for various
reasons.
Most external
analysts agreed that the design it was trying to achieve was
operationally unsuitable to the doctrine, which was soon
abandoned by the USMC.
Moreover, you don't
know how the USMC came to require the cancelled design, which it
worked on from 1996 to 2010 as part of that project, but which
had its genensis with a US Army project at Ft Eustis in the
early 1950s.
In general if a
design is unachievable after two decades, then my submission was
as good as any.
No, not necessarily...it just means that a suitable solution wasn't
found. Your submission could still be so far off base and full of
fail that it would make the Chauchaut look like an outstanding
weapon.
Literally hundereds
of military officers and engineers had been on the program by
the time it was cancelled.
Was the problem
that they failed to find the right technological solutions?
No, the problem,
confirmed through several interviews, was that NO ONE ASKED THE
QUESTION - what problem is this design solving?
If your company had
tried for 20 years to remain competitive in the market, and
failed, adn you were facing bankrupcy, I think you would
consider my paper :-) If not you, then your accountant.
The program in
question spent $3.5 billion by the date of cancellation. This is
irrecoverable.
Greg
You're missing the entire point of what I'm trying to say, Greg, or
simply ignoring it because you don't like what it says. The bottom
line is that you submitted a paper and, I apologize for the term,
you were a nobody who had nothing in his resume to suggest he knew
what he was talking about. This isn't a summer blockbuster where
the guy no one has ever heard of and has absolutely no track record
in the subject rides in on his fry oil powered pickup truck and
saves the day with something that no one every remotely conceived.