On MJ conversion to storage - interesting hmmm
On DOD procurement sad but true, not likely to get fixed this side national annihilation ... then it'll just move somewhere else
Tim
>________________________________
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:32 AM, <> wrote:
>>
>> I think MJ actually DOES correlate to the size of the bore and thus the
>> size of the round so it's not preposterous. Just use seconds instead of 5
>> second combat rounds as the baseline. Works great with the autoloaders.
>> The problem, as it were, is FFS treating autoloaders as the same speed
>> (when they've always been slower for big bore direct fire weapons).
>> Integrating skill/task in retrospect seems obvious but that's hindsight
>> for you.
>
>MJ is definitely proportional to size of the weapon (energy it must
>contain) and recoil system (energy it must dissipate), so it's good there.
>But when you convert MJ into its storage medium (the round) which has
>other inputs, you need to be careful about retaining MJ instead of its
>storage medium. It looks like that one bit us.
>
>> They're working through the "prototype" bugs. :D I think the JSF problem
>> is interesting because it's a problem of too much mission and too many
>> chiefs and not enough indians.
>
>You caught me. I really changed the subject on that. Here's the real
>problem: PPT slides. "Economies of scale," and "if we build just one
>system that does everything for everyone, it will be much cheaper in the
>long run," look really good on a PPT slide, and everyone falls for it. The
>problem is that PPT does not have a built-in laws of physics checker to
>throw those phrases out, or mark them with a little squiggly colored line
>underneath. "One size fits all" never does. And it's never cheaper, it is
>always more expensive, exponentially so, so that the economies of scale by
>getting multiple people using it will never make up for the increase. When
>you bring more players to your "one size fits all" table, they ALWAYS
>bring more cost increases in requirements that must be integrated than
>they bring cost savings in terms of the number they will buy to increase
>the production run and lower costs.
>
>US DoD procurement is comprehensively destroyed, broken, fraudulent,
>criminal, stupid, asleep-the-wheel, the-lights-are-on-but-no-one-is-home.
>
>But I won't let myself go any further on that one.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>
On DOD procurement sad but true, not likely to get fixed this side national annihilation ... then it'll just move somewhere else
Tim
>________________________________
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:32 AM, <> wrote:
>>
>> I think MJ actually DOES correlate to the size of the bore and thus the
>> size of the round so it's not preposterous. Just use seconds instead of 5
>> second combat rounds as the baseline. Works great with the autoloaders.
>> The problem, as it were, is FFS treating autoloaders as the same speed
>> (when they've always been slower for big bore direct fire weapons).
>> Integrating skill/task in retrospect seems obvious but that's hindsight
>> for you.
>
>MJ is definitely proportional to size of the weapon (energy it must
>contain) and recoil system (energy it must dissipate), so it's good there.
>But when you convert MJ into its storage medium (the round) which has
>other inputs, you need to be careful about retaining MJ instead of its
>storage medium. It looks like that one bit us.
>
>> They're working through the "prototype" bugs. :D I think the JSF problem
>> is interesting because it's a problem of too much mission and too many
>> chiefs and not enough indians.
>
>You caught me. I really changed the subject on that. Here's the real
>problem: PPT slides. "Economies of scale," and "if we build just one
>system that does everything for everyone, it will be much cheaper in the
>long run," look really good on a PPT slide, and everyone falls for it. The
>problem is that PPT does not have a built-in laws of physics checker to
>throw those phrases out, or mark them with a little squiggly colored line
>underneath. "One size fits all" never does. And it's never cheaper, it is
>always more expensive, exponentially so, so that the economies of scale by
>getting multiple people using it will never make up for the increase. When
>you bring more players to your "one size fits all" table, they ALWAYS
>bring more cost increases in requirements that must be integrated than
>they bring cost savings in terms of the number they will buy to increase
>the production run and lower costs.
>
>US DoD procurement is comprehensively destroyed, broken, fraudulent,
>criminal, stupid, asleep-the-wheel, the-lights-are-on-but-no-one-is-home.
>
>But I won't let myself go any further on that one.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>