Crusader shares common technology and processes with Bradley A3 and Grizzly
					Reality attack
	Tom Rabaut, President and CEO of United Defence, reports on 21st-century challenges
					Three challenges face America’s defence industry: simulation modelling acquisition requirements and training (SMART), civil false claims act (CFCA), and public versus private, or socialism versus capitalism. These may seem unrelated but all have a direct impact on new technology and the cost of operating and maintaining it. SMART Looking at the overall acquisition process from an industry perspective, what is needed is a seamless government-industry partnership through close co-operation that also involves seamless integration of requirements and technology. Also needed is more interoperability and re-use of technology, processes and tools across programmes. Within United Defense, for example, Bradley A3, Crusader, and Grizzly have been able to share common technology and processes, such as simulation-emulation-stimulation, and have common trainer systems development. Both government and industry stakeholders need to build in more interoperability and re-use across programmes. This does not mean standardising on tools or on the approach to simulation-based acquisition, but more standard and universally accepted interfaces that better enable interoperability and re-use. Another fundamental need is to have compatible collaborative environments. Weapons systems operate in a common physical environment and other needs include requirements-based concepting and life-cycle support. Industry should be involved in both to contribute their knowledge base and expertise. For requirements-based concepting we need tools at the front end that give us the ability to develop rapid prototyping concept designs derived from system requirements. For life-cycle support we need tools that better simulate the back end of the life cycle to address training, readiness and operations and support issues. With simulation-based development, we have the capability to field trainers prior to fielding tactical systems. We can provide the same functionality in trainers as in tactical systems, allowing soldiers in the loop to support design early, development and training. SMART is good news, the payoff will be enormous. Civil false claims act The drive to simulation-based acquisition, along with many key army initiatives, is dependent for success on greater integration of the commercial and defense industries. There are barriers to this including the Civil False Claims Act that obscures the latest in commercially developed technology, and most in the Army do not understand this. A unique feature of defense contracting is that the government or an employee can allege fraud without having to prove any intent or sustain a high burden of proof, a different standard than that used in commercial litigation involving allegations of fraud. In many cases the Department of Justice admits that pertinent Department of Defense (DoD) regulations are imprecisely drawn and subject to multiple interpretations, even by those knowledgeable in the field. A number of innovative companies have been burned by this law and so adopted policies to steer clear of defence work. If found guilty, punishment is harsh with sizeable payments to any employee who initiated the suit against the company. Simulation-based development offers the capability to field trainers prior to fielding tactical systems Many legal experts see this law as not in line with fairness and due process. The act is no longer a fraud law because the government or a relator is not required to prove the contractor had intent to defraud. This is the Civil False Claims Act and few in government are inclined to change it. The army needs to take a stand and insist on a change in this law. It denies full access to today’s technologies. Public versus private Ask any US military man or woman, or any member of Congress whether they favour capitalism or socialism as the basic economic system for America and most will respond by saying “the cold war is over, Russia lost, and America won; capitalism is now the undisputed wave of the future”. They might note that most socialist countries are shifting from state-owned means of production to private ownership. Further, they might add that in many capitalist countries where there had previously been public ownership of large industrial sectors these, too, are being privatised. Between 1990 and 1992 there was an average of 150 firms annually privatised worldwide, and no nationalisations. From 1986 to 1992 privatisation reached a cumulative value of $325b. Surprisingly, the only major portion of the world’s economy that has moved toward socialism is the industrial base of the DoD. This base, that includes depots and arsenals, has a special history and rationale, and represent tens of billions of dollars a year of defence industrial base expenditures. Because of their long history and strong political support, these institutions have been shrinking much less rapidly than the private portion of the defence base. In a sense depots are an insurance policy because during peacetime the DoD did not have to have the extensive support capability required during a long conflict. In addition, armed services worried that they could not depend on industry to maintain their equipment, arguing that they won’t be around when we need them and we certainly can’t expect them to go overseas to maintain this equipment. Over the years industry has strongly disagreed with many of the assumptions associated with this rationale. In the post-cold war era it is becoming very difficult to justify government depots. For one thing likely scenarios do not include high-intensity, extended-duration conflicts. More probable is a conflict similar to Desert Storm, a brief engagement with no time to send equipment back for repair and maintenance. Had there been time, the under-utilised private sector plants could easily have handled the workload. And during the Vietnam war, as in Desert Storm, private industry did have maintenance people overseas, some even in the war zone. Large international corporations routinely maintain their equipment on a worldwide basis. Many in the defence industry argue that because little new equipment will be purchased in the post-cold war era, their major defence business will be in maintaining and upgrading existing systems. So if the DoD is to maintain a viable defence industry, it will have to give this work to the private sector instead of to its own depots. These comments are from Jacques Gansler’s book, Defense Conversion – Transforming the Arsenal of Democracy, the point is that Jacques Gansler thinks our industrial base is growing in socialism and supported by Congress. We should be down-sizing depots and arsenals and privatising the work, as is being done around the world, even in communist countries. Controversial, but clearly the DoD industrial base is not following the American capitalistic way and shifting work to private ownership. Gansler convincingly lays out the paradox, a capitalist nation denying its military the full benefits of capitalism. The Army cannot change this but it can speak with a single voice. It can support the Office of the Secretary of State for Defense in its efforts to privatise, and it can support the Secretary of Defense in seeking additional base closure and realignment commissions. SMART is a perfect example of government/ industry co-operation. The Civil False Claims Act is hurting the US Army. Failing to fix this problem will continue to deny the Army the full range of commercially developed technologies. And when the worldwide trend is privatisation, isn’t it ironic that capitalist America is drifting in the other direction in the defence industrial base. © >>>> www >>>>> United Defense
	"The drive to simulation-based acquisition, along with many key army initiatives, is dependent for success on greater integration of the commercial and defense industries"