The current system of government aquisition models for new technology & training for warfighters rewards long-drawn-out bid-process development because long processes involving acquistion engineers, etc., generates revenues for these divisions, while simple ready-to-field solutions (which are generally cheaper and better) sit on the sidelines while the process takes place.

A good example of this is the current issue with ground combat/convoy simulation training aquisition through PEOSTRI in Orlando, Florida. Proven simulation training with current geospecific database environments for convoys in Iraq is available from a company called Raydon, yet is not fully utilized while PEOSRI recreates engineering specs for the same thing to put out on bid to companies that would have to recreate what already exists.

Reply to this comment

The Defense Department’s problem, in fact the whole country’s problem, is China. They are selling us trinkets at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Costco…and many other discount stores. It reminds me of when we bought Manhatten from the Indians for worthless trinkets & firewater.

China is using our “hard” (not for long) currency to equip it’s “ten million man army” (no typo) with our latest technogies that the U.S. sells to China mostly in the form of chips (see NYT article on BOEING 5/7/06).

After China is satisfied with it’s military spending, it will then continue building its nuclear capability.

After lining the appropiate Chinese pockets, they then purchase US Government securities (they are second only to Japanin their holdings). We have no choice other than selling as much as we have to.

This will anialate the US dollar.

Americans will have to bring home American food on Sunday nights because Chinese food will be too expensive for the average American.

In addition to, and maybe worse than China, is our 2000 mile border with Mexico. We must secure it even if it means placing men every 20 feet.

Our other large border 3000 miles long with Canada
poses a similar problem because their security
is fairly porous as well.

Based on these and other issues, I think the Defense Department should be re-named the Incapable Defense Department.

If my scenario is correct, since I have NO ability
to learn tongue, I will have to get to Canada before its borders are closed.

Al Americans should consider the dangerous action of buying trinkets from China. Remember the
Native American Indians “Great Deal”.

Reply to this comment

Addressing Mr. Chuck Jones (above):

A very valid point, Chuck: What if a fully armed U.S. UCAV is compromised by the enemy? Granted, these aircraft often are “stealth,” the possiblity of them being “used against us” seems a fair fear. Unfortunately, I have not found any information regarding a self-destruct feature on such aircraft. (However, I did find this interesting, albeit-older, conversation/thread at an F-16.net forum that briefly discusses — though doesn’t focus entirely on — the possibility you brought up: http://www.f-16.net//f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1052.html )

Can any of our readers answer Mr. Jones’ question?

Regards,

David R. Butcher, IMT editor

P.S. I don’t recall receiving your e-mailed inquiry several months ago. Apologies for your not having received a response.

Reply to this comment

What is the status or what is known of the miniaturization of nuclear warheads as applicable to Bunker Busters?

Reply to this comment