Jura The idiot
General
thanks, TE, the article also mentions
"A former special forces operator and German army paratrooper instructor"
who's involved in this, keeping up with the tradition
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
thanks, TE, the article also mentions
"A former special forces operator and German army paratrooper instructor"
who's involved in this, keeping up with the tradition
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well to be honest I am not sure. Like I said it was a big deal back in 2008. The last article I saw was 2009. I think it was being made by Electronic System and Logistics Group or ESG. But it seems to have gone quite after that. When I saw the specs the Army wants it came to mind. I mean its a very cool idea and supposedly some one even crossed the English Channel with something similar.
Jura The idiot
General
it's important, isn't it?
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/us-military-news-thread-186-1547.html#post293005
the only additional info I found:
Jura The idiot
General
On Acquisitions:
Posted on InsideDefense.com: June 20, 2014
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, said last week that the Defense Department is looking for innovative ways to artificially drive competition into programs that may have only a single industry bidder.
Kendall discussed the issue with reporters at the Pentagon during a June 13 press conference in which he unveiled the Defense Department's annual acquisition system review. Unsurprisingly, the study found that greater competition usually leads acquisition programs to outperform those with single bidders in terms of cost and schedule.
"Thus, we must continue our efforts to seek competitive environments in creative ways," the report states. "Unfortunately, direct competition on some [major defense acquisition program] contracts is often not viable -- especially in production, where significant entry costs, technical data rights, or infrastructure may be barriers. In response, we are seeking ways in which competitive environments and open-system architectures will allow us to introduce competitive pressures."
While the report did not specify what creative solutions to drive competition were on the table, Kendall laid out the issue for reporters, explaining that while real industry competition is ideal, the simple threat of competition could have just as positive an impact on an acquisition program.
"It doesn't have to actually be there," he said. "I think it creates a climate in the corporate environment where, if you're worried about losing your business, you're going to work a little bit harder to make sure that you hang on to it. And that's the result that we're after. So that's what we mean by a competitive environment. And there are a variety of things that we can do to try to create those environments."
Kendall said the very act of issuing requests for information from industry after one company has already been awarded a contract might do the trick. He also said that the Pentagon was exploring direct competition at different levels, perhaps targeting an acquisition program's supply chain by breaking out different components on which industry could bid.
"There's also the whole idea of creating a competitive environment where people are worried that they're going to lose their business, for whatever reason," Kendall said. "You can start some exploratory work on alternatives on the next technology. There's interesting data in the report that shows that when we give sole-source awards, and there is no competition whatsoever, we get less effective results than when we have just the threat of competition."
When asked if DOD was seeking to instill the artificial threat of competition he responded by saying, "that's exactly the type of thing we're talking about."
Posted on InsideDefense.com: June 20, 2014
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, said last week that the Defense Department is looking for innovative ways to artificially drive competition into programs that may have only a single industry bidder.
Kendall discussed the issue with reporters at the Pentagon during a June 13 press conference in which he unveiled the Defense Department's annual acquisition system review. Unsurprisingly, the study found that greater competition usually leads acquisition programs to outperform those with single bidders in terms of cost and schedule.
"Thus, we must continue our efforts to seek competitive environments in creative ways," the report states. "Unfortunately, direct competition on some [major defense acquisition program] contracts is often not viable -- especially in production, where significant entry costs, technical data rights, or infrastructure may be barriers. In response, we are seeking ways in which competitive environments and open-system architectures will allow us to introduce competitive pressures."
While the report did not specify what creative solutions to drive competition were on the table, Kendall laid out the issue for reporters, explaining that while real industry competition is ideal, the simple threat of competition could have just as positive an impact on an acquisition program.
"It doesn't have to actually be there," he said. "I think it creates a climate in the corporate environment where, if you're worried about losing your business, you're going to work a little bit harder to make sure that you hang on to it. And that's the result that we're after. So that's what we mean by a competitive environment. And there are a variety of things that we can do to try to create those environments."
Kendall said the very act of issuing requests for information from industry after one company has already been awarded a contract might do the trick. He also said that the Pentagon was exploring direct competition at different levels, perhaps targeting an acquisition program's supply chain by breaking out different components on which industry could bid.
"There's also the whole idea of creating a competitive environment where people are worried that they're going to lose their business, for whatever reason," Kendall said. "You can start some exploratory work on alternatives on the next technology. There's interesting data in the report that shows that when we give sole-source awards, and there is no competition whatsoever, we get less effective results than when we have just the threat of competition."
When asked if DOD was seeking to instill the artificial threat of competition he responded by saying, "that's exactly the type of thing we're talking about."
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Same thing you would do with your chute. You bury it out of sight. Something like this would most likely be used only on very specific, super secret missions by SF operators so deniability would be the order of the day. You leave no traces of you ever coming or going... or you go in and do what you need like blowing up a radar station, SAM sites etc before the cavalry arrives... and once everything is done pick um up during extraction.
could also be useful for HALO missions which in that case you just detach the wings after the terminal phase, deploy the canopy for a quick final descent on the DZ.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Update on Ohio Class SSBN replacement programme called SSBN-X
Will likely be 12 x SSBN with same warhead capability as 14 x Ohio Class
Will exceed 20,000 tons so they are giants and I mean giants
Will include electric propulsion system under development by eletric boat company supplied by the nuclear power
Price tag is estimated at a whupping $7 billion a pop without development costs
Total programme cost to exceed $100 billion
USN is trying to use new block Virgina class technology to get price down to $5 billion a unit
Will likely be 12 x SSBN with same warhead capability as 14 x Ohio Class
Will exceed 20,000 tons so they are giants and I mean giants
Will include electric propulsion system under development by eletric boat company supplied by the nuclear power
Price tag is estimated at a whupping $7 billion a pop without development costs
Total programme cost to exceed $100 billion
USN is trying to use new block Virgina class technology to get price down to $5 billion a unit