I believe that that practice is generally true for technologically advanced nations all over this planet (heck, even a lot of ones that aren't advanced still pursue the acquisition of advanced equip that creates all sorts of logistical/maintenance problems) so I don't see why Traveller shouldn't reflect that.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 6/16/15, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Question
 To: "tml@simplelists.com" <tml@simplelists.com>
 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 8:32 PM

 The biggest
 problem for the F-35 is the pursuit of 'advanced
 technology' which is often immature and therefore
 creates significant additional developmental costs from the
 supplier chain. This is one of the issues I have always had
 in Traveller advanced vs appropriate technology use. Most
 engineers that work based on delivering products which work
 on budget, on time and to specified requirements don't
 pursue such design goals. US DoD is uneconomic in a very
 counter-engineering practice way. But, Traveller, conceived
 during and after the Vietnam War is exuberant over this
 unsustainable approach to capability delivery.

 On 17 June 2015 at 11:43,
 Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
 forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
 sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:

 --------------------------------------------

 On Tue, 6/16/15, Bruce
 Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [TML] Question

  To: "tml@simplelists.com"
 <tml@simplelists.com>

  Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 2:36 PM

  > On

  Jun 16, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Grimmund <grimmund@gmail.com>

  wrote:

  >

  >>

  >> A tank you cannot transport to the

  battlefield because it’s

  >> too

  large/heavy to use your infrastructure is a lump of
 useless

  metal.

  >> Expensive useless metal that

  will likely cause your troops to get killed

  >> because you couldn’t afford the

  tanks that could be transported.

  >

  > That's an argument to upgrade your

  infrastucture, not downgrade your amor.

  Which may be prohibitively expensive compared

  to building your tanks, which ARE FINE FOR THE ROLE
 THEY

  WERE BUILT FOR (note 'While the TAM would have been

  effective against any possible South American
 opponent”

  ...It’s also illogical that it was ‘helpless against
 any

  NATO standard tank'…if it mounted the same gun,
 it’s

  not precisely ‘helpless’.)

  But then this is the very kind of thinking that

  gets us absurdities like the F-35 as a replacement for
 both

  the F-16 as an air superiority fighter and the A-10 as
 a

  ground support aircraft.

  Perhaps we can call the F35 the

  ‘dallyplane’, to drag it back to the source
 material.

  --
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 And *that* sorta' reprises the arguments that US DoD
 chief Robert McNamara & his 'whiz kids' first
 proposed way back in the early '60's with their
 'one size CAN be made to fit all' push to make the
 F-4 Phantom the end-all a/c for the US Armed Forces.

 Now the Phantom did turn out to be a remarkably flexible a/c
 but by the '70's specialty a/c were back again.

 It seems to me that what happens is that, as the cost, of a
 program increases, those who have a stake in it, whether
 personal, financial or otherwise, start tacking on more
 & more 'capabilities' to justify the increased
 cost. In the end a sort of 'cannibalization' starts
 to take effect as money is taken from a/c already  in
 service to keep a program 'on track'. But retiring
 an a/c before it's successor is ready for service has
 always been a bad idea. The first example I can remember is
 when C-141 production was prematurely ended 'cuz
 "the C-5 is almost ready to go"  in the
 '60's.

 =================================================================================================

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a