Army of Davids Beats Pentagon Procurement 412
chris-chittleborough writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'a Marine officer in Iraq, a small network-design company in California, a nonprofit troop-support group, a blogger and other undeterrable folk designed a handheld insurgent-identification device, built it, shipped it and deployed it in [Iraq] in 30 days.' Compare this to the Automated Biometric Identification System, a multi-megabuck Pentagon project now 2 years old. With bureaucracy increasingly strangling innovation, will agile smaller businesses be able to accomplish what once required a sprawling government project?"
American Spirit at it's best (Score:4, Insightful)
Apples & Oranges? (Score:5, Insightful)
operation and storage? High humidity? Is it impervious to dust?
How does it handle shock and vibration?
20+ years ago, I worked for a company that designed & manufactured
power supplies for the military. It's one thing to design a quick
& dirty one-off, proof-of-concept. It's quite another to build a
production device that will withstand continued use in a multitude
of military environments.
gov't never as efficient as business (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had so many negative experiences when dealing with governmental customers. While there is a lot of blame to be laid on the large companies, I can't fathom (or rather I don't want to) how much money has been wasted by people who really don't understand what they want, or how much it will cost to actually get what they want.
I've spent months doing work only to have it erased by the customer, worked another month, only to have them revert back to the origin. Only then do they discover that you can't just 'go back' once production has started without huge costs.
Or maybe they do understand it, but just don't care.
It Is My Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Beware of the Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my 3 cents.
Re:There must be a typo. (Score:1, Insightful)
Gold Platting (Score:4, Insightful)
Two problems: org size and gov't creativity (Score:3, Insightful)
The only time the government really beats out private industry (and to a greater extent, larger orgs beat out smaller ones) on new technology innovation is when it's a money issue (the materials really do cost billions of dollars). As technology has gotten cheaper and become more accessible, that advantage has slowly disappeared.
A larger issue than size, though, is that governments (most of them, this one in particular) tend to recruit homogenous workforces and encourage groupthink. Workers are encouraged (directly or through lack of promotions, harassment, etc.) to "fit in" at an institutional level. So, it's not surprising that the government is not as innovative as other places.
People lately are often heard saying that the US government doesn't "pay enough" to get good people. I dont know about you all, but I'd give up a little pay to work on interesting projects and with good people. The government's problem is that it doesn't -like- people who are creative, innovative, and different and actively selects them out - not the pay.
Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Those lousy Democrats sure are crafty...
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:5, Insightful)
though this is yet another example of how damn effective gururla warfare is. the only time you tend to see terms like "dishonourable conduct" and "unfair tactics" is from the side that is not doing well.
if you don't buy that it is effective, consider that the enemy, armed with AK-47s, RPGs, high explosives, and dedication to their cause, are holding their own against what is likely the most expensive and advanced miltary in the world.
Re:Apples & Oranges? (Score:3, Insightful)
This goes to show that the Not Invented Here attitude of most government contractors is due to wanting to stretch out a contract rather than trying to make a more reliable design.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
I swear to god I'm not trolling - but for the life of me, I don't understand why you're shipping guys halfway around the world to do someone else's job.
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Infantry proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way of thinking of the situation is like this: Is it better to have a piece of equipment that might break rather than having no equipment at all?
If the answer is "yes", then a stopgap solution like the one in the article needs to be deployed immediately. If the answer is "no, it would be worse than having nothing" then the troops should make due without.
Re:Apples & Oranges? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not a "major war" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apples & Oranges? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear your line of commentary a lot. The experience of people who are there and who have been there is important, but everyone's individual experience is still just that - it doesn't give an overview, you may miss very important features of the situation that didn't occur where you are (and, of course, it leaves out the experiences of Iraqis). Asking your experiences to be taken seriously is important. Trying to quell discussion based on those experiences is wrong.
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional armies have been saying that about insurgents since at least the US war for independance. They didn't line up into neat rows and square off against British soldiers like they were expected to.
Of course it's effective. They are using the tactics that the Americans trained and equipped them to use against the Soviets. And, they were good at it -- you'll notice the Societs eventually gave up and went home.
It's a higly effective set of tactics.
Cheers
article is an oversimplification (Score:5, Insightful)
I also can say that the big contractors are indispensable for some things. Lockheed Martin maintains and updates the monster that is Aegis, for example. David has no ability to do this. Maybe an army of Davids overseen by LockMart acting as lead integrator, but otherwise no.
The acquisition process has serious problems, don't get me wrong. But anecdotes don't make a good argument.
News of the Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
It's news that a small group of committed individuals moves faster than Department of Defense procurement? Continental drift moves faster than Department of Defense procurement.
It can take decades for a new weapons system to go from concept to prototype to deployment. Look how long systems like the F-22 fighter [globalsecurity.org] were in the procurement pipe. The DoD procurement process is so lengthy that by the time the system is deployed, the threat it was designed to counter has often disappeared.
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:3, Insightful)
You have it completely backwards. It is free enterprise that can move with agility and innovate, and which has done so in this case. And it is the overwhelming regulation required with any complex Federally controlled enterprise which strangles it. So, no, the idea that some fascist, command-economy, profit-punishing, military-industrial complex would out-innovate what we have now, is COMPLETELY NUTS.
It's not just government (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll put that down to people's fear of not being able to support themselves, and thus being unable to let go of a job even if that job is no longer relevant. Perhaps if rights to food, clothing and shelter were garaunteed, government departments that had outlived their usefulness would be less resistant to being dissolved.
Whew! Almost let a pro-capitalist thought slip through unchallenged.
Re:device not about saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Setting aside the legality of the occupation for a moment, the typical insurgent isn't defending his homeland, but more so fighting for his particular faction to gain control or power, doing whatever harm against others in relatiation for "being wronged" whether by United States or another competing faction.
The troops at this point aren't so much fighting a convential war, but rather working as an "industrial strength" version of a police force to stop one group from attacking the other and vice-versa, getting caught in the middle from "meddling" with each groups objectives. As a police force, they need the tools of a police force in order to locate and identify troublemakers and perform their investigations more efficiently. This is one example (of many) tools to function in this manner. Remember that the military is better equipped for fighting wars and not function as a domestic police force. Equipment like this would allow them to function better with their current mission as such.
Think of it this way for a moment: Would a city's police force be very effective if you took away all of their offender databases, mobile data terminals and other tech tools? Yes, you could equip them all with body armor and machine guns, but their effectiveness is then limited to "shoot first and ask questions later". If the police were only allowed to operate in this mode, it's no wonder that all sorts of uprisings and attacks would result.
Re:American Spirit at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean "were"?
I hate to have to clue the
Granted, there is no insurgency, there is no Iron Curtain nor any cold war any longer but the fact is that had the US and associated allies abandoned their posts in these nations after the ink on the peace treaties were signed there would have been another war the next day. While this occupation has gone on for far too long don't think for a second that the peace treaties truely put everything at peace. How the hell do you think WWII started in the first place?
It's good to see people keeping an eye out for the big brother factor but I think we're all a bit too quick to think that there is going to be a defined point where everyone is going to drop their weapons and return to their farms and markets the next day. It simply doesn't happen.
There was a pretty interesting article today on MSNBC.com [msn.com] about seeing the problems in Iraq and the rest of the middle east from the eyes of an American Muslim. I recommend people who don't understand the Sunni/Shiite conflicts to go read this. It's not overly involved and it makes it a bit easier to understand what is really wrong not to mention it gives some insight into what is really more a matter of gang warfare as opposed to a real insurgency.
Re:It's not just government (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually that is not quite true. Except for a few well publisized examples like the British retreat from Lexington and Concord, most of the time the Continental army faced the British army toe to toe and fought by the formal rules of the day. They lost most of the battles (at least those in the north). The English had too long of a supply line and other political problems at home and just decided to focus their attention elsewhere.
They were beaten not by a mythical rifleman hiding behind a tree but rather in part by real soldiers fighting a stand-up fight and (more importantly) the political realities of their time.
Re:American Spirit at it's best (Score:5, Insightful)
Link, please.
First of all, Americans where in Vietnam for more than two decades. They had their chance. It's not like the American forces didn't some small window of oppurtunity to end the conflict.
Second, can you give an accurate estimate of how much more NVA soldiers Americans would have needed to kill to end the war? Do you know how much more people would have been killed after the war if the outcome was in our favor? I sure as hell can't. That's why bringing numbers into to this is more bull shit than anything else.
One of the main reasons why we went there in the first place was because McCarthy scared the shit out of the American public (sound familiar?), and basically made people believe that if communism doesn't end in Vietnam, then the whole world would become a slave to communism. Of course, this never happened after the war.
[quote]Guns don't kill people, peacenik bullshit does![/quote]
People who refuse to fight to defend their family, friends, and country are pussies. I have no qualms saying that. But Vietnam wasn't a war about defending ourselves. After we "lost" Vietnam, they didn't come over and bomb the shit out of us, like we did to them. So pulling out of there wasn't as a horrible decision as you make it out be.
Re:American Spirit at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
100 people a day is, seriously, something to sneeze at.
Re:It's not just government (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame the contractors and the politicians (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it ... the large military contractors (the Raytheons, the Halliburtons, the whomevers) are not rewarded for their innovations. They're rewarded, in units of large contracts for weapons systems with questionable necessity and dubious quality, for their contributions to the campaigns of the political leaders who control those contracts. Can you said "quid pro quo"? Sure you can. And the more impressive-sounding and more expensive the proposed weapons systems are, the more likely the funders get hard-ons for them.
Oh, yeah, and let's add in the concept of cost-plus contracts, where the contractors make more money the more they spend. There's no incentive to build anything for a reasonable cost, and no incentive not to keep piling on the extensions and overruns.
So simple things, like better body armor and better defense for humvees and the cheap electronic ID-things mentioned in the article, which aren't sexy (but save lives), don't get the attention of the Big Contractors nor their political funders.
I'm kinda surprised that Raytheon hasn't tried to stamp out the little guys ...
Re:It's not just government (Score:3, Insightful)
The concepts aren't worthless. Of course everyone should have the right to food, clothing, and other necessary goods. However, the methods used to enforce those rights usually lead to excessive centralization on the part of the government.
Not to say that it always happens (just look at Scandinavia), but the methods used to enforce those rights must be carefully monitored to make sure that the system doesn't collapse into totalitarianism.
Re:Infantry proof (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing you said changes that point.
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the same type of individuals will be responsible for our failure in the Middle East.
The fact is that the US military are totally incompetent to win the kind of war we are in.
Re:American Spirit at it's best (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not just government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is the entire problem with "cheap combat" (Score:3, Insightful)
Or when one side plays by a set of rules and the other side doesn't. For example a US bomb killing 100 insurgents and 1 civilian is seen as a failure, while an insurgent car bomb that kills 100 civilians and 1 US soldier is seen as a victory.
Holding their own in the political sense that they still exist, which in practical terms is all they need. However, from a military perspective they have not had any significant victories over the US.
Re:Apples & Oranges? (Score:3, Insightful)