An anonymous reader writes "American defense companies are full of good surprises--its just that not all of them hit the field of battle. There have been many US military machines of war that seemed to be revolutionary--not just on the potential battlefield but how they could transform the defense industry, but never make it out of the prototype stage. Why? As Robert Farley explains: "Sometimes they die because they were a bad idea in the first place. For the same reasons, bad defense systems can often survive the most inept management if they fill a particular niche well enough."
I guess a weapon can have all the whiz-bang coolness and seem like an amazing invention, but humans still have to make them work and adapt to all sorts of conditions--budgetary, politics, and people's plain bias. It seems in this respect, some of the best weapons of war can't win under those "battlefield" conditions."
Link to Original Source