DARPA Open-Sources Military Vehicle Design

Velcroman1 writes "The army's secretive technology division has been collecting dozens of ideas for the design of its in-the-works rescue vehicle via a social-media contest — relying solely on the power of the crowd to get the next big thing built. Local Motors of Chandler, Ariz., is running the competition, officially known as the Experimental Crowd-derived Combat-support Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge, through March 10. It's not so different from when multiple users edit a page on Wikipedia, Local Motors CEO John Rogers said. 'Effectively, we want to co-create all aspects of a vehicle,' Rogers explained. 'The Wikipedia method of co-creation is really not far off from the way we talk about it.'"

MIC

[Nidi62]

And yet somehow it will still get built by the same contractors the military already uses, have huge cost overruns, weigh too much, and be unable to fully fulfill the mission for which it was originally designed. The problem with our military-industrial complex isn't in the design stage. Historically we've had brilliant designers. The issues arise in the politics involved with defense acquisitions. Our procurement and testing system is notoriously corrupt. Preference is always given to the same big companies. If a new design/weapon/technology threatens some general's(or congressman's) pet project, it is dropped. Start looking outside the usually suspects for stuff like this, not designing. Make defense contracts actually be real bid contracts, and keep them adhered to the contract.

Overly constrained design space

[Bookwyrm]

I looked at the contest, and thought that the design constraints they are putting on the entries are pretty tight. If I recall/interpret things correctly, the vehicle must be designed to use the given frame, the given engine/drive system, and also, the driver position cannot be changed.

That puts a kind of serious limitation on just how creative you can get. If you could at least move the driver around, you could try for some interesting arrangements or variations, but if the driver has to be in the one standard spot, and the wheel position is already determined, and the frame... they are going to get an awful lot of designs which are just variations on a theme, I suspect.

Re:Defective by design

[c6gunner]

What about a design in which you don't send the combatants in the field in the first place?

That would be like /. without the comments. Boring, a waste of money and space, and even more pointless than usual.

Re:MIC

[Anonymous Psychopath]

If you're talking about the military, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly haven't looked at the equipment which the US military currently owns.

Like standard issue M-4s using 5.56 ammunition, with an effective range of roughly 300 yards being used in Afghanistan, where average engagements take place at ranges of 400 yards and up(And the documented reluctance of DoD to go to much more capable calibers such as 6.5mm, and the massive amount iof time it took for SCARs and ACRs to even get into the hands of troops)? Or planning to use F-35s in close air support missions, when a small, inexpensive turboprop plane is both more efficient and much cheaper? MRAPs for Iraq that have virtually no other use than in Iraq-style conflicts? The whole Littoral Combat Ship fiasco, with the munitions packages not even close to being workable? The KC-X mess? Do I have to go on?

There are also successes, such as the M1 Abrams and the M25 rifle (just off the top of my head). It's disingenuous to claim that the military is unable to deliver any workable combat systems to the troops. It is accurate to say that they don't do so consistently.