Monthly Archives: April 2012

Alchematter: A Wikipedia For People Who Make Things | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation

Posted on by
Reply

Alchematter: a wiki for makers…

It’s virtually impossible for defense acquisition to keep pace with the rate of change in the modern threat environment. A novel way to mitigate this deficiency is to provide military personnel engaged at the edge with the resources (i.e knowledge, tooling, etc.) required to rapidly improvise field expedient modifications to standard issue equipment. Winning on the battlefields of the future might just come down to who hacks better…

via Alchematter: A Wikipedia For People Who Make Things | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation.

Predicting the future: bottom-up innovation and open access.

Posted on by
Reply

Among his tips is “Favor the liberators,” which means that you should bet on those who are opening up access to new goods and tools, “turning scarcity into plenty.”

via Predicting the future: bottom-up innovation and open access..

–

Smart Defense means exposing the commercial technology marketplace to problems in defense – increasing competition, reducing costs, and seeding innovation.

NATO chief stresses “smart defense” as answer to austerity – Xinhua | English.news.cn

Posted on by
Reply

“How to provide security in a time of economic austerity, and how to deal with great uncertainty in the world with fewer economy resources at home” will be a challenge NATO has to face in order to balance economy and security, which is necessary for stability, he said.

via NATO chief stresses “smart defense” as answer to austerity – Xinhua | English.news.cn.

How Not to Buy Weapons | Battleland | TIME.com

Posted on by
Reply

This is an interesting article. But we wouldn’t be so quick to write off concurrent design, development, and production. The commercial world has proven that – in the correct context – it works all too well. They call it agile development.

Agile methodologies are best applied in “little bet” scenarios – discrete, short-term tasks where the risk of failure does not threaten the viability of the overall enterprise. The real problem with the concurrent development model that DoD has employed for the missile defense program isn’t the ‘concurrence,’ it’s committing too early to a top-down, waterfall plan and being unable (or unwilling) to adapt to changing circumstances over the life of the effort.

Our conclusion: concurrent design, development, and production is good, depending on how it’s implemented…

How Not to Buy Weapons | Battleland | TIME.com.

DOD, intelligence community pushing for new pilot-style acquisition model — Federal Computer Week

Posted on by
Reply

The best is the enemy of the good.  Viva Smart Defense!

DOD, intelligence community pushing for new pilot-style acquisition model — Federal Computer Week.

NATO’s Smart Defense: where it makes sense (and where it doesn’t)

Posted on by
Reply

The problem with the NATO vision of Smart Defense is pretty obvious: national sovereignty. How do you convince member nations to forego critical military capability investments and rely on partner states to fill in the gaps? What happens when national interests aren’t in perfect alignment? Things can get complicated quickly…

The key to NATO’s vision for Smart Defense is to focus on cooperative initiatives where there is universal consensus, such as, protecting member nations from ballistic missile threats. It is a much harder case to make for an initiative like Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) or similar foundational capabilities that underwrite a nation’s military independence.

All things being equal, a NATO Smart Defense based on an outsourced military capability model is fraught with political pitfalls. When the rubber meets the road, it’s hard to imagine a preponderance of member nations agreeing on a substantive capability-sharing structure that transcends boutique needs.

Where NATO can realize the biggest impact on behalf of member nations vis-a-vis Smart Defense is by helping to shape the defense marketplace by breaking down the regulatory barriers that inhibit the commerce in defense articles between members. A NATO-led Smart Defense marketplace would enhance international industry competition (lower costs) and promote a richer and more diverse defense technology ecosystem (increase capability). Now that’s smart…

Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article “Smart Defense through Smart Strategy: The Need for a “Best Deal” Policy”

Posted on by
Reply

NATO’s Smart Defense initiative must include practical policies to engage the defense industry as part of the solution.

NATO should actively search for other interested members or partners to lower the costs. Through its contacts with the defence industry, NATO should be able to promote a lucrative deal that might deviate from countries’ original preferences but has the advantages of being cheaper and complemented by the assets of other NATO countries.

Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article “Smart Defense through Smart Strategy: The Need for a “Best Deal” Policy”.