Re: TOE

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 16:29:02 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
>At 1:50 PM -0500 7/3/04, <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
>>Mil Specs.  God's answer to "more is better."
>
>Depends on the milspec actually.

My experience is things like maps and charts (the difference is
important
but not as much as the hydro boys/girls like to believe.)   Of course
now
you can get a "TLM-'like' product" shudder.

>
>>Seriously, more 'capabilities' means more things to break/fix.
>
>So you subscribe to the Russian model? "Feh, 
>gunner doesn't need range finder, just tell him 
>to estimate....fire enough times, he figure it 
>out."
>

No, but I do think we sometimes over design/complicate things.	The
early
radar based AAMs were... inauspicious... initially.  Tactical doctrine
made them useless but even when fired initially they were a flop because
the complexity required more rigorous testing then was applied to work
the bugs out.

>I'll stick with the extra bits....
>

Like computers, when they work they are awesome but when they don't they
make nice expensive paper weights.

Gracias,
Glenn
who uses technology on his job but doesn't believe it replaces good
judgement or common sense very well.  Or sufficient training/testing.  

P. S. Here at work we have an expression - "Chinese Radar Site or
Nepalese Temple?"

I'll leave the meaning up to your imaginations <grin> since, of course, 
"...it never happened..." 

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!