[ARC5] Re: [Milsurplus] C-405A/A vs. C-740/ART-13

[Michael Tauson]

On 9/19/07, David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Then as now,  military contracts have as much or more to do with political
> patronage as they do with technical issues.

*sigh* ... I had forgotten politics.  Even in knowing the art it
played in A.R.C.'s own development, I managed to forget.  Mea culpa.
Or something.

> One of the reasons A.R.C. never built liaison equipment was that it would take
> contracts away from some other firm in another state.

One of, but their strength was in small lightweight command sets not
in liaison sets.  (Counter to this, RUs were used in liaison
installations.)  Even their own VHF attempts didn't bear fruit until
after the war while WE's prior experience (WE 233 & ARC-4)
complimented A.R.C.'s LF, MF & HF designs.

> If you don't believe that's how it's done (that technical considerations  take a
> back seat to campaign contributions),

Sadly, I do.  The base closings you mentioned are part of it as are
who gets what contracts.  (Pearl Harbor NSY vs Norfolk NSY is included
in that.)  Funny how "what's right for the country" is defined, isn't
it.

BEst regards,

Michael