4 ms·

This is a pet rant of mine. The U.S. will always fetish gadgets at the expense of simple functionality. You'll always get a DDG-51 rather than an FFG-7; an M-

This is a pet rant of mine. The U.S. will always fetish gadgets at the expense of simple functionality. You'll always get a DDG-51 rather than an FFG-7; an M-16 rather than an AK-47. This despite the reality that the FFG-7 does most of what you need a navy to do, more cheaply, and an AK-47 is far less fuss and bother than an M-16. The F-14 falls right in line.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
Within a given class of system, sometimes rugged, robust, and plentiful does win the day over sophisticated but more fragile and expensive. On the other hand, an advanced military will want advanced capabilities and there is plenty of history of putting such things to good use. See for example the F-117, precision guided bombs/JDAMs, etc. A lot of good arguments can be made about how the U.S. has failed to control the costs of developing and fielding advanced capabilities. Sometimes they just plain make bad design decisions, like with the M1A1 or F-35. But I don't think there's a valid case that advanced capabilities confer insignificant benefits vs. large quantities of less-sophisticated systems. You ideally want a good balance of both and you need the understanding and empowerment on the acquisition side to control costs. Re the M-16, Jim Fallows wrote a great article decades ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-...
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  That story on the M-16 is mental. So my AR-15 is actually more effective than its military offspring?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Militaries tend to be fairly conservative, so this is generally true of any given gun - civilian variants tend to acquire features faster. There's also the economic aspect of it - even small savings add up to a lot when you're ordering the product by the million, so there's a tendency to skimp on such small stuff. And then, of course, there's the military bureaucracy. Here are some entertaining stories from David A. Lutz, who was the project manager for M16A2 at USMC: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708173852/https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Origin_of_A2_barrel_profile/118-260598/#i2237255 https://web.archive.org/web/20200708173852/https://www.ar15.... "Ever wonder why Safe, Semi, and Burst are marked on the starboard side of the receiver? Well as the list of improvements increased to a point some 2 1/2 years into the program spilled over onto a second viewgraph, the last thing on the first page was the starboard side marking, the first thing on the second slide was a "mirror image" selector that pulged-in from the right side for us left-handed Marines. One Colonel who shall remain un-named insisted that I "lose everything on the second slide."" Or here's the story of the M16A2 barrel profile change: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708174036/https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Government_profile_barrel_strength_question_/12-143716/#i1109448 https://web.archive.org/web/20200708174036/https://www.ar15....
- daemoens 4y ago
  How was the F-35 a bad decision? It's already cheaper than every competitor it has and is leaps and bounds the better overall fighter due to its stealth.
int_19h 4y ago
What's "fetish" about the M16 series? It merely makes different compromises than AK. And some of them ended up working better long-term - e.g. the split receiver makes optics easier to mount, and the gas system and the charging handle placement make the receiver much better sealed against dirt and such. The difference in ruggedness and reliability between the two is also very overstated - much of it dates back to the original introduction of M16, and the various associated early problems (none of which were due to the design as such). But today? Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago

Within a given class of system, sometimes rugged, robust, and plentiful does win the day over sophisticated but more fragile and expensive. On the other hand, an advanced military will want advanced capabilities and there is plenty of history of putting such things to good use. See for example the F-117, precision guided bombs/JDAMs, etc. A lot of good arguments can be made about how the U.S. has failed to control the costs of developing and fielding advanced capabilities. Sometimes they just plain make bad design decisions, like with the M1A1 or F-35. But I don't think there's a valid case that advanced capabilities confer insignificant benefits vs. large quantities of less-sophisticated systems. You ideally want a good balance of both and you need the understanding and empowerment on the acquisition side to control costs. Re the M-16, Jim Fallows wrote a great article decades ago: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-...

lowbloodsugar 4y ago
That story on the M-16 is mental. So my AR-15 is actually more effective than its military offspring?
- int_19h 4y ago
  Militaries tend to be fairly conservative, so this is generally true of any given gun - civilian variants tend to acquire features faster. There's also the economic aspect of it - even small savings add up to a lot when you're ordering the product by the million, so there's a tendency to skimp on such small stuff. And then, of course, there's the military bureaucracy. Here are some entertaining stories from David A. Lutz, who was the project manager for M16A2 at USMC: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708173852/https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Origin_of_A2_barrel_profile/118-260598/#i2237255 https://web.archive.org/web/20200708173852/https://www.ar15.... "Ever wonder why Safe, Semi, and Burst are marked on the starboard side of the receiver? Well as the list of improvements increased to a point some 2 1/2 years into the program spilled over onto a second viewgraph, the last thing on the first page was the starboard side marking, the first thing on the second slide was a "mirror image" selector that pulged-in from the right side for us left-handed Marines. One Colonel who shall remain un-named insisted that I "lose everything on the second slide."" Or here's the story of the M16A2 barrel profile change: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708174036/https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Government_profile_barrel_strength_question_/12-143716/#i1109448 https://web.archive.org/web/20200708174036/https://www.ar15....
daemoens 4y ago
How was the F-35 a bad decision? It's already cheaper than every competitor it has and is leaps and bounds the better overall fighter due to its stealth.

int_19h 4y ago

What's "fetish" about the M16 series? It merely makes different compromises than AK. And some of them ended up working better long-term - e.g. the split receiver makes optics easier to mount, and the gas system and the charging handle placement make the receiver much better sealed against dirt and such. The difference in ruggedness and reliability between the two is also very overstated - much of it dates back to the original introduction of M16, and the various associated early problems (none of which were due to the design as such). But today? Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU