DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Tactical Development » Urgent Needs Needed Urgently

Urgent Needs Needed Urgently

MRAP.jpg

Our friend Nick Schwellenbach over at the Project on Government Oversight sent DT an interesting set of documents that deals with the Marines difficulty obtaining gear under urgent needs requests.

Nick writes:

Despite over 130 urgent need requests (known as Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONs) or Urgent Universal Needs Statements (UUNSs)) from 1 MEF while it was deployed in Iraq, less than 10 percent were fulfilled and many were “cancelled, delayed” or led to solutions which were not asked for.

Before November 2006, the document says that the requests “frequently languished” at Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) level until Central Command Chief of Staff (CoS CENTCOM) “intervened,” restoring urgency to the process.

But more intriguing is the section on page eight under the heading MNF-W needs competed against funded programs.
JUNS-web.jpg

What this shows is the tension between procurement programs that are already underway for the next generation of equipment and the commercial-off-the-shelf products that answer the needs of troops in the field now.

Case in point is the MRAP debate. USA Today reported yesterday that commanders realize that despite the robust construction of the massive transport, EFPs can still penetrate their thick shells. The dialectic of measure-countermeasure continues.

The services have been redirected to spend $20 billion on MRAPs even though the ONR initiative stated in the presentation is ongoing (thats the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program the next generation Humvee).

The list continues with current UAVs vs. future ones, counter mortar systems in development and autonomous logistics vehicles that could be delivered now versus those that are in experimentation.

One has to wonder whether throwing money at a war thats losing political support is prudent. Officials claim the MRAPs wont be fully deployed until 2009. Does anyone believe the need for them will be as great after the next president is inaugurated as they are now?

And what of the other programs? When Congress demands a peace dividend for getting out of Iraq, will it be so willing to devote billions to next-generation UAVs and Humvees when MRAPs and ScanEagles are sitting in motor pools and airfield hangers?

Well, of course, follow closely as all this shakes out. But it seems as if the real procurement battles have already begun.

(Thanks again to Nick for the gouge…)

(Photo: Navstar MPV, courtesy DID)

– Christian

Share |

June 1st, 2007 | Tactical Development | 254911 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/06/01/urgent-needs-needed-urgently/Urgent+Needs+Needed+Urgently2007-06-01+18%3A00%3A35Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « USS Kitty Hawk On Last Cruise | The Sunday Paper (Style Insert) » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C says:
    June 1, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    “Does anyone believe the need for them will be as great after the next president is inaugurated as they are now?“
    of course they will, the next urban counterinsurgency war isn’t going to feature enemies starting from scratch. EFPs and IEDs in general aren’t going anywhere, nor are the methods used to deploy them. they are proven weapons with proven tactics.
    when we end up having to invade iran and venezuela because otherwise we’d be on the brink of a nuclear war for oil, we’ll be in the same shit, different day.

    Reply
  2. Camp says:
    June 1, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    “Unconscionable” was the first word that came to mind when I read this article… Then I read C’s post, “same shit, different day.” Man, that little phrase describes sooo many things, in sooo many ways. :)
    .
    Cheers!

    Reply
  3. BT says:
    June 2, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    But that is not a problem, China has supersonic cruise missles and anti-sat weapons. Need to be ready for a high tech nation-state war in the year 2100. In the mean time, soldiers die everyday from a few buried artillery shells.
    What are the requirements again? An armored truck with a V hull, that can defeat 500 pound IED’s, 2000 pound VBIED’s, EFP/EFJ, tandem warhead RPG’s, and the usual heavy machine guns. Oh yeah, and it needs to weigh 15 tons, not 200 tons. Seems doable, if someone can manufacture a 100 thousand of them tomarrow, we can get the upper hand on this problem.
    We can do much better with the MRAP, but I think 100 thousand Predator B’s over Iraq 24/7 would be more effective than this neverending arms race we found ourselves in on the ground.

    Reply
  4. ohwilleke says:
    June 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Defense Procurement is like a bear. In peace time, its metabolism slows down and new generations of systems come painfully slow, and it received very little input from its environment. In war, there should be a much faster metabolism and receives far more input to respond to allowing generation after generation of experiments to be tested and improved upon.
    Does anyone now fault the Department of War procurement gurus of World War II because they ripped through new designs for planes and ships over and over again in a war about the same length as our current struggle, on the grounds that is disrupted the orderly progress that was being made in 1938?
    It also misapprehends the logic of procurement. If you have an MRAP sitting in your garrisons rusting away, procurement gurus will insist that a requirement be developed to replace it. But, if you have only Humvees sitting in your garrisons, no one will be bold enough to say that you need something that fills a mission quite different from that of your legacy Humvee.

    Reply
  5. Solomon says:
    June 4, 2007 at 2:17 am

    I hate to toss this in everyones faces but a bad secretary of defense can have a devastating impact on all areas of the department…most notably procurement. Rummy was a big fan of “leap ahead” technologies and transformational forces. Because of this desire on his part and the president’s, a focused, product evolutionary cycle has been cast aside for the mythical “Wonder weapon” that may not provide the benefits needed. To think that weapons projected into the future would take priority over items needed now is the pure folly. Good Riddance to Rummy and by the looks of things the entire Procurement Branch needs an enema!

    Reply
  6. oldcents says:
    June 4, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Just remembered some facts from worldwar II on the German side: Germany did not develop their weapons after the start of the war, continued war with what they already had. They saw no need for it until very late in the war, by then it was too late. The Allies had better guns, tanks(russian side only), and planes by then.
    Procure, good; Develop, better; Choose either one—your f&@*!d.

    Reply
  7. Sven Ortmann says:
    June 5, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    That is historical nonsense.
    The German arms development continued all the time through 1945.
    Examples:
    Small arms; MG42 introduced, StG44 introduced, K43 introduced
    AT: 5cm Pak and 7.5 Pak and 8.8cm Pak introduced, Panzerfaust 6 Panzerschreck introduced
    Tanks: Pz III and IV got more powerful versions, Panther/Tiger/TigerII/JPz IV/most StUGIII/Hetzer/Elefant/Nashorn/Hummel/Wespe … many new tanks introduced
    Artillery had new designs as well, but except 12.8cm gun little improvements and experienced few really new weapons in WW2.
    The only thing that remotley comes close to what you stated was that Hitler ordered a kind of stop to weapon projects not about to mature quickly soetime in 1940 or 1941 — that was cancelled by about 1942 or 1943 and largely ignored anyway.

    Reply
  8. william wyssbrod says:
    June 7, 2007 at 12:42 am

    Our company has developed a new implant device to improve the present procedure currently being used for below the knee amputees. Due the Government’s “RED TAPE”, we have unable to present our device. We have submitted Forms 2891 and Form 2892 as requested and still are being held up by Government “RED TAPE”.our soldiers are suffering because of this. “What’s Up America”?????

    Reply
  9. Grandjester says:
    June 8, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Sven is correct. In fact, when it come to airframes the problem was TOO MANY programs going on, which left the Luftwaffe with the same 109’s because great ideas like the ME262 and the FW Ta152 (upgraded FW190) wer competing with a myriad of other less promising prototypes and the scary but irrelevant V weapons.
    William, did you have the proper cover sheet on your TPS Report?

    Reply
  10. Brett says:
    June 9, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    Congress better not ask for a “peace dividend.” The end of supplemental funding for Iraq will not solve the problem of aging equipment the military. But the Democrats have never, NEVER, complained about shortfalls in anything besides armor.

    Reply
  11. Roger Doc Adkinds says:
    November 15, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    My name is Angel Adkins-Farsi, I’m the daughter of the late Roger D. (Doc) Adkins. He served on The USS Kitty Hawk from Feb.1973 to 1974 just after the Dec. 1973 explosion (Fire), where he was injured.

    I’m looking for anyone with any pics and/or information that might help me in my search to know My Dad better. We met for the 1st time last yr. in July, & he was very sick, I spent the last few months of his Life getting to know him.

    But, Dad was sick most of the time & was always in need of Dr.s’ care. With failing health Dad past away on the 27th day of May 2009.

    Any help that I can get would be greatful. Thank you ALL for your service to Our Country.

    Sincerely, Angel Adkins– Farsi

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    • Defense Spending Headed Down
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
    Recent Comments
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
      Absolutely agree. That approach...
      Kole
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      I agree about reducing boom. 81's don't have...
      bduff509
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
      Very interesting read. I...
      Sev
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      And then consider this bullshit tanker bidding...
      John
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
      Pressfield, in supporting his...
      ripr
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      First of all, I don’t think China wants to risk her...
      Bob
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Government procurement is a joke but not as...
      CHOPS
    • Army (might) Abandon “Leap” for M4 Replacement
      I should also point out that...
      A Realist
    • Army (might) Abandon “Leap” for M4 Replacement
      Let's examine the...
      A Realist
    • Russian F-22 (PAK-FA) First Test Flight Revealed
      you really like Russia dude. The Pak Fa...
      gunnar
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage