DARPA Open-Sources Military Vehicle Design 105
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.'"
Re:MIC (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
But WHAT specialization? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is this vehicle supposed to do?
If it is for the Afghan war, then the US is using the wrong tactics. America keeps thinking in bases and convoys between them. They conquer a bit of ground, build some good will, then retreat to their bases, give the enemy time to do his work, then do it all over again.
The war needs feet on the ground, soldiers out in the field, every village a few soldiers so the enemy has now where to move to. That is risky for the individual soldier because he doesn't have a full base behind him and even riskier for the good will because there is NOTHING like meeting an American to get a deep seated hatred for them but it has been proven to work in the past.
Simply put, if you put a very small unit in each village and along important roads and crossings, you remove the capability for the enemy to move unseen and plants bombs. No bombs means you can have your convoys moving on your schedule, not that of the enemy and your soldiers can concentrate on fighting, not on when the truck they are in will blow up.
But it requires a total attitude change. No more bits of the USA imported into Afghanistan but soldiers mixing with the locals and living with the locals.
You don't need all that advanced gear for that. An ordinary jeep to make travel easy and to haul supplies and a small fortification. A constant air screen overhead so any attackers can be quickly responded to in force and voila, hearts and minds can be won without the enemy coming in every night to undo your work during the day.
It is the cop on the beat vs the high tech chopper that doesn't fly at night.
But you can't win a big defence contract with that, or make the bling at the pentagon at peace time.
Look at the docu Restrepo for a total failure in strategy and tactics. The soldiers comment on it themselves, they sit in their bases and the enemy has full freedom of movement everywhere else. No patrols don't help. You need to be out there ALL the time. Especially if your patrols are so easily spotted. The enemy can't subvert the locals if you are with the locals, you can then do it all every hour of the day by showing that you are... actually that seems to be the biggest problem. WATCH Restrepo again, through the eyes of a native. Winning you over yet?
No? Then that is the real problem and no fancy gadget will help.