[email protected] (Paul Gilmartin) writes: > I don't understand what you see as "sad". Do you consider it likewise > sad that in some respects the F-22 Raptor outperforms the Ford Model T? > (Well, not TCO, but for the F-22 TCO is not the primary objective.)
i periodically referenced that i sponsored boyd's briefings at ibm. after boyd redid f15 (cutting weight in half) & f18 ... and then started doing f16 (he had stories that they tried to have him charged with theft of gov. resources ... the "unauthorized" supercomputer time being used for f16 design ... and thrown in leavenworth for the rest of his life, aka the military/industrial complex at work)) ... it appeared that he had hand in f20/tigershark. a theme in boyd's briefings was machine cost as well ratio of flying hrs to hrs of maintenance (as well as skill level required to do maintenance). while f20 couldn't quite match f16 ... you could get possibly half-dozen f20s for the cost of f16 ... and could get greater flying hrs per f20 compared to f16. another scenario was Abrams main battle tank forced on the marines (aka there was discount if more than certain number were purchased ... army didn't quite meet that number ... so marines were forced into buying enough Abrams to exceed the minimum for the discount). The problem is that Abrams runs 65-70 tons ... and something like 90-95% of Marine mission profiles involve parts of the world with 35ton load limit. misc. past posts mentioning boyd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html#boyd1 and misc. URLs referencing boyd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html#boyd2 -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
