Was that another way of saying that the cruise missile patterns looked like a dog's breakfast ?
Doesn't that imply incorrect software was being used, not "merely" integration problems ?
Hey, wouldn't the software have been already accredited by an original manufacturer ?
Does this imply bogus software had been substituted for accredited software ?
How could the situation persist for years that bogus software had been substituted, that cruise missile patterns looked like a dog's breakfast, that no-one was saying anything ?
Were knowledgeable people somehow impeded from going on board ?
Were phony demonstrations set up where things appeared to work ?
Cui bono ?
Did ANY key people, since contract signing, say "I agree with the approach" ?
Tags: