Oh I don't know that 60% is that far from reality. From a product manufactures perspective, we would specify operational characteristics and expectations without anything in the system being less than stellar. Why? Because you have to, your completion will and why would you advertise proclaiming less. I mean out of the box performance.
So you want an inexpensive radio? Well we can do that, we just have to use less than the best materials. We are going to beat our suppliers up too. Maybe a slightly lower grade metal, settling for looser tolerances (tolerance stacking) and not addressing the less obvious impacts of the operational environment (for example subjecting the test to clean water Environment, not mineral laden or salt water). Maybe a difference in batteries, diodes, and whatnots. These things add up to help lower the cost but also reliability.
But you got your radio for $90 bucks. Is the manufacture to blame or is he building within the demands of the customers? Well chances are that manufacture makes a better version but it costs more. Should a $90 radio perform the same as a $400 one? Well out of the box, there may not be a lot of difference, two months banging around in a bucket in a damp boat may expose those differences.
Yes compromise has been discussed. If I have to wire a external antenna into my handheld, it's no longer portable. Is just compact and has to be assembled and disassembled more often.
More often than not military specs are much more stringent than consumer goods. This has to do with operational environment, long term reliability, shock, stress etc. I mean a hammer is a hammer and there are poor examples of waste and rip-offs but I would hope our troops don't rely on a west marine $90 radio. (No offense to WM).
I wish I could afford the best of everything but I can't and most of us here can't either. But if we can do something to get better performance from what we can afford than we do those.
For example. We chatted about different coaxial. Well I can cripple a great $1000 radio by using a lower grade coaxial or cheap connectors OR I can use a lower priced radio and use a better coaxial and net better performance. I could take great pains and costs to get an antenna up on the top of the mast or spend less and just stick it on the stern. All things being equal with regard to coaxial, length, radio, and terminals, the one up high will work better. We know that.
It's all a matter of what's important to us and what we are willing to spend for that feature. Sum said it when he tells the story of his shoulder and a pull start motor. After he fractured his shoulder and was unable to do anything for a few days, he spent a lot of money to make sure that couldn't happen again for Ruth and his own sake. He's one that's smart enough to learn from bad experiences. I on the other hand may have to get burnt more than once before I stop playing with fire.
I said all that to say this is why I came to you guys for help. I could put all kinds of crap in my boat but if it doesn't work, what's the use? Other than just bragging about the goodies. I don't have unlimited funds so I want to know how to get the best bang for my budget. I don't need to communicate with Russia, but I may need to call for help or at the very least need to talk to the bridge of a large container ship to figure out which way I need to go to get out of his way.