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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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

  • 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

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

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    Recent Comments
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      They are going to have to look at the whole...
      Wembley
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Just look at this " picture " for a moment. The...
      Zandor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      I know LOSAT seemed awesome but wasn't it cancelled? I...
      JimboJones
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Yes you're quite right, I get to witness...
      JimboJones
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • 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 | © 2009 Military Advantage