So is it an oxymoron to say that Collins computerization ran into integration problems ?
•A/by John_Dem...
will say this about defense workers around the world (I've worked with US, British, Canadian, Belgian, German, and Israeli), they tend to be pretty patriotic and pretty self-conscious. I don't think that it is likely that someone would doctor a subsystem.

Also, as I recall, the faults associated with the Collins class subs were not a specific catastrophic failure, but a series of cost and schedule overruns, problems with quality due to inexperience building submarines, and the rate of change of computerized equipment making the original equipment obsolete.

As the McIntosh-Prescott report found, "the underlying cause is a myriad of design deficiencies and consequential operational limitations relating to the platform and combat system."

So no, I don't think these boats were messed up on purpose. No, I don't think a rogue employee or manager trashed the system. I think it was due to lack of experience: experience managing, experience manufacturing, and experience developing long lasting military projects.
•A/by Waikiki Kahuna
A sensor system S, born integrated with some sort of effector system E2.

An effector system E , born integrated with some sort of sensor system S2.

And you want systems S and E integrated.

So you can aim for interoperability of (S and E2) and (E and S2).
•A/by mikejobo...
My Dear Shariputra,

I like the way you put it: 'oxymoron'.
I agree that it is an oxymoron to say that Collins computerization ran into integration problems, since they did not use subsystems power tools properly.
They did not or else, it would have facilitated integration, or be 'born integrated.'
I like your questions, Shariputra.
•A/by Froggie
It would have to otherwise it wouldn't be able to integrate in the first place :)>>