DDAY wrote:
----------
In article , Jim Carriere
wrote:

Another term for that is "sunk costs" (or writeoff), which is not a good
analytical justification for continuing with any project. Political
justification, certainly, but it is similar psychology to holding on to
a bad investment (hoping it will eventually turn around). If a project
is a dud, there really is no sense going on with it no matter how much
money has been spent or how close it is to being complete.

That's not always true. Sunk costs can be an important consideration if the
replacement is going to cost more to develop than the existing program will
cost to fix. Put it this way--suppose you've sunk $8 billion into a program
that will require $4 billion more to fix. But if you determine that any
snip

Which all depends on whether the original solution is still partly valid
or no longer valid.

I think we're both expressing the same thing in different ways, and that
we agree with each other.

And OBTW my opinion is that the JSF is still a valid solution. Not for
the current conflict, but for future conflicts or (best of all) for
future conflicts that it may help deter.