Article on MiIitary R&D/Procurement

[DA SWO]

Another story from the AFA.

There is a link where you can download the pdf.

Gist of the story, we are buying the wrong stuff and may not have the right gear for a higher intensity war.

Too Good to Be True: ​

Procurement funding increased by 97 percent in real terms from Fiscal 2000 to Fiscal 2010 and research, development, test, and evaluation funding increased by 66 percent over the same time period, according to a ​

new policy paper​

from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. However, the Defense Department failed to complete several programs, such as the VH-71 presidential helicopter, and delayed others, like the KC-46 tanker and development of the Next Generation Bomber, into the next decade. The weapon systems it did procure may not be of much use in the next war. For example, the Air Force bought a number of remotely piloted aircraft, predominately the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper. While those aircraft have been very successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are "limited to environments where the US already enjoys air superiority," states the paper. It continues, "These aircraft are not able to evade radar in contested air space and are virtually defenseless against surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles." This may mean the "large quantity" in today's inventory may not "be useful in the future, unless the US fights another war like Iraq or Afghanistan." ​

The link again:​

http://r.listpilot.net/c/afa/6o088p5/2un9a​

The link doesn't show it, but you are actually opening a pdf file.​

 

[AWP]

This may mean the "large quantity" in today's inventory may not "be useful in the future, unless the US fights another war like Iraq or Afghanistan."

I understand you can't plan for the next war, you don't always have the option of fighting when and where you want, but I distinctly recall going through Basic in 1993 and all of my DS's were reading up on Low Intensity Conflict. That was topic du jour, they even took time out to caution us that the next war wouldn't be another Desert Storm. 5 months later TF Ranger would have an epic fight in Mogadishu and within the decade we would see the Balkans, Haiti, the rise of AlQ, Afghanistan, and finally Iraq Part II. Only one of those conflicts was largely conventional in nature and we enjoyed air superiority in all of them.

Is the next war some all-out, conventional struggle or more of the current Afghan, HOA, Philippines model? My money's on the latter, but to drag the programs mentioned above into the current GWOT, the KC-46, the NGB, and CSAR-X (if it ever shows up again) would all see significant use if they were available today.

I think the policy paper missed the boat.

 

[DA SWO]

Other then Korea or Iran, everything look low-medium intensity.
Let the Korea's duke it out, and Israel can take Iran for us.

I would draw down most of the overseas bases/installations.

Mobility, Log, SOF and "First In forces would stay. Fighters, tankers, bomber, armor/mech all come home.

We have an innate inability to leave someplace once we are in.

 

[roketsciontist]

IF only I could get my hands on just 1/10th of a percent of that RDT&E funding...we could make some better SOF vehicles!

 

[DA SWO]

IF only I could get my hands on just 1/10th of a percent of that RDT&E funding...we could make some better SOF vehicles!

Have you guys tried the PPI Route?

 

[roketsciontist]

That must be a financial business manager thing, I'm just a lowly engineer!

 

[DA SWO]

That must be a financial business manager thing, I'm just a lowly engineer!

Your managers should be familiar with Planned Program Improvements, often an easier sell.

 

[roketsciontist]

PM-FOSOV has been trying that route on the HMMWV based GMV for years, but that isn't getting the User what they need! GMV 1.1 Draft RFP went on the street today.
P.S. I'm used to hearing the term P3I [pre-planned program improvements], never heard it referred to as PPI.

 

[DA SWO]

PM-FOSOV has been trying that route on the HMMWV based GMV for years, but that isn't getting the User what they need! GMV 1.1 Draft RFP went on the street today.
P.S. I'm used to hearing the term P3I [pre-planned program improvements], never heard it referred to as PPI.

Yeah, my bad. P3I was the Navy and AF term also.
That and spiral development (primarily with software upgrades)