Migrating to Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts is a good way for DoD to reduce costs. But these cost savings may come at a price. If industry owns 100% of the risk for contract cost overruns, this burden may have a chilling effect on defense R&D.
On the other hand, commercial technology companies own 100% of their development risk, and when it comes to R&D, they are setting the pace!
A case of ‘Pentagon Hold ‘Em’ – Washington Business Journal.
Smart Defense in action…
But we do have concerns that the UAV NATO has elected to purchase (Global Hawk) is so expensive that the U.S. has elected to terminate the Block 30 Global Hawk program. Isn’t there a “smarter” way to achieve the same capability for less cost?
NATO Will Buy Its First Spy Drones, Eventually | Danger Room | Wired.com.
NATO leadership seems to be taking for granted that the cost of military systems will continue to escalate; therefore, the only way for countries to underwrite these costs is to pool resources. But shouldn’t NATO also be challenging industry to develop more cost effective solutions to military problems? Smart Defense needs to address both sides of the cost equation…
NATO will settle for political declaration instead of concrete Smart Defense projects at Chicago Summit | Atlantic Council.
The Smart Defense force structure as reflected in the 2013 budget: expandable, expeditionary, and precise.
The Promise — and The Danger — in Panetta’s Budget | Battleland | TIME.com.
Is it possible to reduce military personnel costs without undermining capability through the smart use of technology enablers?
Ticking Time Bomb | Battleland | TIME.com.
Migrating mission from the active duty to the reserve (and National Guard) components is not just smart, it’s absolutely necessary.
Why Spend $139K For a Soldier You Can Get for $44K? | Battleland | TIME.com.