I believe that that practice is generally true for technologically advanced nations all over this planet (heck, even a lot of ones that aren't advanced still pursue the acquisition of advanced equip that creates all sorts of logistical/maintenance problems) so I don't see why Traveller shouldn't reflect that. -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/16/15, Greg Chalik <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] Question To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 8:32 PM The biggest problem for the F-35 is the pursuit of 'advanced technology' which is often immature and therefore creates significant additional developmental costs from the supplier chain. This is one of the issues I have always had in Traveller advanced vs appropriate technology use. Most engineers that work based on delivering products which work on budget, on time and to specified requirements don't pursue such design goals. US DoD is uneconomic in a very counter-engineering practice way. But, Traveller, conceived during and after the Vietnam War is exuberant over this unsustainable approach to capability delivery. On 17 June 2015 at 11:43, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote: This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows: -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/16/15, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] Question To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 2:36 PM > On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> A tank you cannot transport to the battlefield because it’s >> too large/heavy to use your infrastructure is a lump of useless metal. >> Expensive useless metal that will likely cause your troops to get killed >> because you couldn’t afford the tanks that could be transported. > > That's an argument to upgrade your infrastucture, not downgrade your amor. Which may be prohibitively expensive compared to building your tanks, which ARE FINE FOR THE ROLE THEY WERE BUILT FOR (note 'While the TAM would have been effective against any possible South American opponent” ...It’s also illogical that it was ‘helpless against any NATO standard tank'…if it mounted the same gun, it’s not precisely ‘helpless’.) But then this is the very kind of thinking that gets us absurdities like the F-35 as a replacement for both the F-16 as an air superiority fighter and the A-10 as a ground support aircraft. Perhaps we can call the F35 the ‘dallyplane’, to drag it back to the source material. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And *that* sorta' reprises the arguments that US DoD chief Robert McNamara & his 'whiz kids' first proposed way back in the early '60's with their 'one size CAN be made to fit all' push to make the F-4 Phantom the end-all a/c for the US Armed Forces. Now the Phantom did turn out to be a remarkably flexible a/c but by the '70's specialty a/c were back again. It seems to me that what happens is that, as the cost, of a program increases, those who have a stake in it, whether personal, financial or otherwise, start tacking on more & more 'capabilities' to justify the increased cost. In the end a sort of 'cannibalization' starts to take effect as money is taken from a/c already in service to keep a program 'on track'. But retiring an a/c before it's successor is ready for service has always been a bad idea. The first example I can remember is when C-141 production was prematurely ended 'cuz "the C-5 is almost ready to go" in the '60's. ================================================================================================= ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://archives.simplelists.com ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a
