Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (222733)	3/8/2005 1:56:35 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574270

Iraq and Serbia where comparatively weak opponents esp. in the air, and even then we were careful about how we depoled the B-52s. But there is a strong tendency to go with weapon systems that are too complex, and thus costly There is some truth to that statement. Esp. if you mean too complex just in terms of costs and not in terms of effectiveness. Sometimes the complexity can get in the way of effectiveness as well but that is less common. But things like the Sergeant York Gun? Nice idea, but it should have been spiked earlier... It might have been cheaper and more effective if it was not for certain attempts to save money. They modified things from other weapon systems, radar modified from an F-16s radar (which they never got to work really well), chasis from an M-48 (too slow to keep up with M1s and M2s). They probably could have done better with an off the shelf European design, and then if they decided to cancel the cancelation payments would have been less the the development cost of the failed Sgt. York system. Alternatively they culd have designed a new up to date system from scratch. It would have cost more up front but probably have been more effective and also it would have required less expensive tweaking. Tim