Email this article

Print this article

Readers Sound Off On Recent Stories 

12  2,009 

 

Attracting New Blood
Thank you for your National Defense article, “Attracting New Blood Tougher Than Building Jets and ICBMs.” (Sept. 2009)

From my perspective, I would add to George Muellner’s comment on blaming youth-unfriendly management style of the industry. I see an acquisition system that is youth-unfriendly, since it is requirements driven — and requirements are ultimately set by the “older dudes” who are effectively in a promotion-based mindset and running the game — with efforts extended to drag them kicking and screaming into areas of “risk” and new thinking. Just participate in a committee development of requirements, and any young person would leave saying, “They don’t get it.”



Lighter Body Armor
Thank you for your article, “Army Has Few Options to Lessen Weight of Body Armor,” in the October 2009 issue of National Defense. I write to point out that Kevlar may be informally used by military personnel to describe the soft goods in their body armor, or their entire body armor ensemble, but formally, this usage is incorrect.

Kevlar is a registered trademark of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. for our brand of para-aramid fiber. We are proud that an overwhelming majority of the vests worn by U.S. soldiers contain our Kevlar fiber as a critical part of their protection. But some do not.

Therefore, both as a formal matter of acknowledging trademarks, and as a practical matter of correctly describing equipment whose constituents vary by supplier, it is not correct to describe body armor generically as Kevlar.

Your article underscores the goal we strive for daily of increasing protective ability per weight in body armor for the U.S. military.



Climate Change
In reference to your October 2009 article, “Why an Effective Global Warming Treaty Will Not Be Reached,” although China and India have a large proportion of the world’s poorest people, they do not for this reason suffer from a dearth of smarts. Of course they will pursue what is in their own best interests and we can expect them to do so in a way that reflects their highly intelligent and informed leadership.

We must come to grips with the reality that global warming is inevitable. The world we will live in is not like the one we grew up in.  We must expect drastically changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, and the associated human response to these and similar events.

A clear-headed and dispassionate prediction of these events is needed on, and in the perspective of, this side of the ocean, regardless of events in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere.  I have not seen such a study that deserved much attention, or that went far enough, to be valuable.



Defense Acquisition Woes
In the October 2009 issue of National Defense, Gen. Peter Chiarelli expressed frustration about the acquisition process. In the same issue, Sandra Erwin may have nailed it when she wrote that the current acquisition regulation can be traced to the Robert McNamara era. Perhaps the basic problem is not that acquisition policies are antique, but rather that they are not “antique.” In the early 1960s something that was not really broken was replaced. What is in place now is not broken, it is shattered.

In January 1942, the Sikorsky R-2 made its first flight. It would become the first U.S. helicopter to actually be deployed. By 1962, the military had designed, developed and deployed approximately 18 distinct helicopters. Between 1962 and 1982, the Pentagon had fielded about six helicopters. Between 1982 and today, two distinct helicopters have been deployed, three if you count the V-22 Osprey.

In October 1942, the P-59 Aircomet made its first flight. This was the first U.S. jet propelled aircraft. By 1962, the U.S. military had designed, developed, and deployed 38 variants of combat jet aircraft and seven jet trainers with an aggregate production of between 45,000 and 50,000 aircraft. This does not count the one to two dozen types that never made it out of development. It also does not count those aircraft that were developed and deployed to fight World War II.

Between 1962 and 1982, six jet combat aircraft were deployed. Counting the F/A-18E/F, since 1982 there have been about four combat aircraft fielded.

What happened to make 1962 so significant? Other than being a convenient 20-year benchmark for several classes of weaponry, it was also the first year that the McNamara acquisition and procurement management policies began to take effect. As the Defense Department looks for ways to reform acquisition, perhaps the best place to start is in the past. Given development track records before and after 1962, it would appear that we could do worse than to return to policies of the 1950s.


Air Force Tanker
In reference to your November 2009 article, “Why the Air Force Needs a New Tanker,” as an old Air Force staff sergeant during the Korean War, I was upset at the “game” the Air Force played in the bidding war for the new tanker a few years ago.

Differences in the specifications presented to each bidder caused this long delay. The Government Accountability Office pounced upon this and ordered a new bid with a level playing field. I am not sure how level it really is though.

Northrop has had a good working relationship with Boeing for a long time. I have worked for both companies. They both build wonderful airplanes. I believe Congress should step in and mandate a single source using the “best” numbers from both companies. Boeing and Northrop would make a great partnership — not prime contractor and subcontractor — but a real partnership. We would keep the jobs at home where they are needed during this economic downturn. And it would certainly help the federal and state tax base.     

Email this article

Print this article