* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45400422
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45379840
Probably not because one is better than the other, but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant factor is the prevailing sentiment at the time among senior decision-makers - especially those wanting to make their impact seen and felt. A significant platform switch over either way is always going to gain CV kudos.
Or am I being too cynical?
But I've no familiarity with Austria's armed forces, to guess at the actual priorities of their decision-makers here.
We had a more-or-less don't-care issue, that was a fundamental design choice, flip-flop every two years. It would require redesign of the whole weapon, but at least the colonel could provide a bullet on his CV stating that he improved the program by choosing XYZ (because arguments could be made either way). Meanwhile, our actual problems with the weapon were weight and cost - the flip-flop choice had no real impact on either.
scottmcdot•4mo ago
[1] https://www.heise.de/imgs/18/4/9/4/0/6/0/0/Bundesheer_Libreo...
IAmBroom•4mo ago