|
I know it's not the usual policy for this board but I'm throwing out a +1 for Shooter's Pawn anyway. I've seen the same things kgoerz mentioned and they've been doing it for "a while". Pegasus - I sympathize with your personal frustration but I hope you see our viewpoint too. I've met engineers working on projects intended to enhance soldier effectiveness. The ones that cared enough to solicit input from users were usually great guys. Though I don't recall any of them getting an idea/product through the bureaucracies they reported to intact. Once the committees got ahold of the product it became a profit line and "what can we add to the cash cow" to maximize profit potential. As far as I'm concerned defense contracts are the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. That's why I'm so strongly in favor of COTS and establishments like Shooters where they have a personal relationship with/interest in their customer base. The commercial marketplace, the "grapevine" (PS.com among others), and review sites like MM's have done yeoman's work getting information and useable technology into the hands of soldiers. My favorite example is the plethora of optical sighting solutions in use today. On the other hand - has anybody got any glowing praises for the ACU?
Ahhhh - this could (will) go on forever. Spend money to train super soldiers that can use anything to accomplish the mission. Quit trying to address training deficencies with super equipment that just puts money in a contractor's pocket. Does DOTLMS mean anything any more? My .02 - Peregrino
|